U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–690 PDF 2014

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON TSA 

ACQUISITION REFORM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 17, 2013 

Serial No. 113–26 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Chairman 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Vice Chair 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

DONDALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

GREG HILL, Chief of Staff 

MICHAEL GEFFROY, Deputy Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL S. TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

I. LANIER AVANT, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina, Chairman 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas (ex officio) 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, LOUISIANA, RANKING

MEMBER

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS

ERIC SWALWELL, CALIFORNIA

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, MISSISSIPPI (ex officio) 

AMANDA PARIKH, Subcommittee Staff Director 

DENNIS TERRY, Subcommittee Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Cedric L. Richmond, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Transportation 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

WITNESSES

Mr. Marc A. Pearl, President and CEO, Homeland Security & Defense Business Council: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 10 

Ms. Shene ́ Commodore, Government Contracts & Business Manager, Intertek, 

Testifying on Behalf of the Security Industry Association: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Mr. Dolan P. Falconer, Jr., President and CEO, Scantech Identification Beam 

Systems, LLC: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

(1) 

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES ON TSA 

ACQUISITION REFORM 

Tuesday, July 17, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richard Hudson [Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hudson, Rogers, Brooks, Richmond, 

Jackson Lee, and Thompson. 

Mr. HUDSON. The Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony from the private sector on TSA acquisition reform. 

I recognize myself for an opening statement. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for participating in the hearing today. We know your time is valuable and we look forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

It is no secret that the Transportation Security Administration 

has struggled with technology acquisition since the agency was established after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and it is fitting that 

today marks the seventh oversight hearing that the Transportation 

Security Subcommittee has held on TSA technology in the last 2 

years alone. 

We have discussed these issues with dozens of stakeholders, 

TSA, Department of Homeland Security leadership, and subject 

matter experts at the Government Accountability Office, the DHS 

Office of Inspector General, and the Congressional Research Service. What we have seen is very concerning. 

For example, GAO and DHS IG have found through numerous 

studies that TSA is not effectively implementing Government best 

practices, such as establishing program baseline requirements and 

conducting comprehensive analysis before it acquires new security 

technologies. This has resulted in acquisitions that have failed to 

meet performance objectives and have wasted taxpayer dollars. 

Additionally, private industry has expressed concern that TSA 

does not accurately communicate mission needs, testing plans, and 

long-term investment plans, which makes it difficult for companies 

to invest their own money in research and development. 

With constructive input from these stakeholders as well as the 

Chairman and Ranking Members, I plan to introduce bipartisan 

legislation this week. Through a series of common-sense reforms 
2 

this bipartisan legislation would address a fundamental problem: 

TSA’s broken acquisition process. 

We don’t have to look far to know the process is broken: Millions 

of dollars’ worth of screening equipment locked in warehouses; 

puffer machines deployed without adequate operational testing; 

AIT body scanners deployed without adequate privacy filters; companies with innovative products that can’t successfully navigate 

TSA’s acquisition process; and perhaps most detrimental of all, 

American taxpayers losing confidence in the TSA’s ability to execute its mission. 

I appreciate the challenges that those at TSA face to address the 

evolving threats that terrorists pose and believe these incidents are 

not always the result of poor intentions at TSA or industry failures, 

but instead are the consequences of inadequate planning and a lack 

of transparency and accountability for significant decisions. While 

some improvements have been made at the Departmental level we 

simply cannot risk perpetuating these mistakes, which is why I believe legislation is needed to address this issue. 

It is my goal for legislation to focus on four specific areas of reform. No. 1, first it should require TSA to develop a multi-year 

technology acquisition plan with input from its stakeholders. This 

kind of planning will encourage industry investment and serve as 

a fundamental foundation for future technology acquisition programs. The private sector represents an incredibly valuable partner 

in security and strategic planning would strengthen that partnership tremendously. 

No. 2, it should require TSA to conduct comprehensive analysis 

for security-related technology acquisitions and provide key information to Congress throughout the acquisition process, including 

any cost overruns, delays, or technical failures. Legislation will 

need to include early warning so that Congress can see what is 

happening before critical failures and react to help protect the taxpayer. 

Third, it must require TSA to develop a system for effectively 

tracking and managing equipment in inventory. In May of this 

year the DHS IG reported that TSA does not have an inventory 

management process that systematically deploys equipment. The 

result is $185 million in equipment, including some unusable or obsolete equipment, locked up in warehouse storage units. This bill 

would help address this problem. 

Finally, any legislation must require TSA to develop an action 

plan for achieving previously established goals for contracting with 

small and disadvantaged businesses. Small businesses with innovative solutions are often unable to penetrate the bureaucratic and 

costly process of Government acquisition. The action plan required 

should introduce greater accountability for meeting small business 

goals, an area that TSA has agreed needs improvement. 

The bipartisan piece of legislation I intend to introduce is a reflection of the testimony, recommendations, and feedback from subject matter experts that the subcommittee has received thus far. I 

am eager to receive additional input from our panel of industry 

stakeholders today so that we can continue to strengthen and improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process. 
3 

In addition, I continue to hope that Administrator Pistole will 

move toward a more risk-based, passenger-friendly future that protects our taxpayers’ interest. We will continue to work on these 

issues with Mr. Pistole and his team while recognizing that TSA 

must comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s policies 

and directives for acquisition management. In many cases our efforts are intended to codify existing DHS policies and directives, 

not supplant or duplicate them. 

Finally, I would like to personally acknowledge the work of my 

predecessor, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for all of his 

insightful work on these issues and laying the groundwork for 

these bipartisan reforms as Chairman of this subcommittee during 

the 112th Congress. 

[The statement of Chairman Hudson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RICHARD HUDSON

JULY 17, 2013 

It is no secret that the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has struggled with technology acquisition since the agency was established after the terrorist 

attacks of 9/11, and it is fitting that today marks the seventh oversight hearing the 

Transportation Security Subcommittee has held on TSA technology in the last 2 

years alone. 

We’ve discussed these issues with dozens of stakeholders, TSA and Department 

of Homeland Security leadership, and subject matter experts at the Government Accountability Office, the DHS Office of Inspector General, and the Congressional Research Service. What we’ve seen is very concerning. 

For example, GAO and the DHS IG have found, through numerous studies, that 

TSA is not effectively implementing Government best practices, such as establishing 

program baseline requirements and conducting comprehensive analyses, before it 

acquires new security technologies. This has resulted in acquisitions that have 

failed to meet performance objectives and have wasted taxpayer dollars. 

Additionally, private industry has expressed concern that TSA does not accurately 

communicate mission needs, testing plans, and long-term investment plans, which 

makes it difficult for companies to invest their own money in research and development. 

With constructive input from these stakeholders as well as the Chairman and 

Ranking Members, I plan to introduce bipartisan legislation this week. 

Through a series of common-sense reforms, this bipartisan legislation would address a fundamental problem—TSA’s broken acquisition process. We don’t have to 

look far to know the process is broken: • Millions of dollars’ worth of screening equipment locked up in warehouses; • Puffer machines deployed without adequate operational testing; • AIT body scanners deployed without adequate privacy filters; • Companies with innovative products that can’t successfully navigate TSA’s acquisition process; • And perhaps most detrimental of all: American taxpayers losing confidence in 

TSA’s ability to execute its mission. 

I appreciate the challenges that those at TSA face to address the evolving threat 

that terrorists pose and believe these incidents are not always the result of poor intentions at TSA or industry failures, but instead are the consequences of inadequate 

planning, and a lack of transparency and accountability for significant decisions. 

While some improvements have been made at the Departmental level, we simply 

cannot risk perpetuating these mistakes, which is why I believe legislation is needed 

to address this issue. 

It is my goal for legislation to focus on four specific areas of reform. 

First, it should require TSA to develop a multi-year technology acquisition plan, 

with input from stakeholders. This kind of planning will encourage industry investment and serve as an important foundation for future technology acquisition programs. The private sector represents an incredibly valuable partner in security, and 

strategic planning would strengthen that partnership tremendously. 

Second, it should require TSA to conduct comprehensive analyses for security-related technology acquisitions and provide key information to Congress throughout 

the acquisition process, including any cost overruns, delays, or technical failures. 
4 

Legislation will need to include early warning, so that Congress can see what’s happening before critical failures and react to help protect the taxpayer. 

Third, it must require TSA to develop a system for effectively tracking and managing equipment in inventory. In May of this year, the DHS IG reported that TSA 

does not have an inventory management process that systematically deploys equipment. The result is $185 million dollars in equipment, including some unusable or 

obsolete equipment, locked up in warehouse storage units. This bill would help address this problem. 

Finally, any legislation must require TSA to develop an action plan for achieving 

previously established goals for contracting with small and disadvantaged businesses. Small businesses with innovative solutions are often unable to penetrate the 

bureaucratic and costly process of Government acquisition. The action plan required 

should introduce greater accountability for meeting small business goals, an area 

that TSA has agreed needs improvement. 

The bipartisan piece of legislation I intend to introduce is a reflection of the testimony, recommendations, and feedback from subject matter experts that the subcommittee has received thus far. I am eager to receive additional input from our 

panel of industry stakeholders today, so that we can continue to strengthen and improve the bill as it moves through the legislative process. 

In addition, I have confidence in Administrator Pistole’s ability to lead TSA toward a more risk-based, passenger-friendly future that protects the taxpayer’s interests. We will continue to work on these issues with Mr. Pistole and his team, while 

recognizing that TSA must comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s 

policies and directives for acquisition management. In many cases our efforts are 

intended to codify existing DHS policies and directives, not supplant or duplicate 

them. 

Finally, I’d like to personally acknowledge the work of my predecessor, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for all of his insightful work on these issues, and 

laying the groundwork for these bipartisan reforms as Chairman of this subcommittee during the 112th Congress. 

Mr. HUDSON. With that, I now recognize the Ranking Member of 

the subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to the Ranking Member of the full committee, who is 

the former Chairman, who also worked very diligently on this. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important stakeholder 

hearing on TSA acquisition practices. 

Soliciting input from stakeholders is critical to developing effective policies. Over the past several months we have all emphasized 

this point to TSA time and time again. I am pleased today that we 

are practicing what we preach. 

Back in May we heard about the extensive challenges TSA continues to face in developing, acquiring, and deploying security-related technology. We also heard from TSA regarding the agency’s 

failure to meet its small business contracting goals. 

Today we have an opportunity to move beyond focusing on past 

failings and to instead focus on how we can help get TSA on the 

right track. 

We all have the same goal. That is to ensure that TSA is a prudent steward of the taxpayer dollars as it fosters the development 

of new technologies that will support the agency’s mission. 

To accomplish this, TSA must have a clear vision of its long-term 

technology needs. It must work with industry to make its vision a 

reality. 

In addition to better long-term planning, TSA would benefit from 

greater partnership with the innovative small businesses. Today, 

far too often we see promising homeland security technologies go 

undeveloped because the small business lacks the capital to undertake the expensive and time-consuming process of getting the tech-
5 

nology tested. We should look at whether there are some best practices elsewhere in the Federal Government that could be employed 

here to address this major barrier to working with TSA. 

Broadly speaking, I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses present today on ways they believe TSA’s acquisition practices can be improved. Particularly, I look forward to hearing how 

improvements can be made that foster consistency and compliance 

with the Federal acquisition regulations and Department-wide directives. 

In TSA’s short history we—we have seen, when it comes to administrative matters, be they personnel or procurement, TSA does 

not do novel well. That is why Congress acted to subject TSA to 

the Federal acquisition regulation in 2007. 

I do believe that technology acquisition by TSA is an area ripe 

for more robust transparency and accountability. Implementing 

such reforms would be beneficial for both stakeholders and taxpayers alike. 

Before yielding back, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend 

you on the bipartisan approach you have taken to the issue of TSA 

acquisitions and potential reforms. Your willingness to address 

issues regarding TSA’s lackluster performance as it relates to small 

business contracting is appreciated. 

Again, I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today 

and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Richmond follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CEDRIC L. RICHMOND

JULY 17, 2013 

Thank you for holding this important stakeholder hearing on TSA’s acquisition 

practices. Soliciting input from stakeholders is critical to developing effective policies. Over the past several months, we have all emphasized this point to TSA time 

and again. I am pleased that today we are practicing what we preach. 

Back in May, we heard about the extensive challenges TSA continues to face in 

developing, acquiring, and deploying security-related technology. We also heard 

from TSA regarding the agency’s failure to meet its small business contracting 

goals. Today, we have the opportunity to move beyond focusing on past failings and 

to instead focus on how we can help get TSA on the right track. 

We all have the same goal. That is, to ensure that TSA is a prudent steward of 

the taxpayer dollars as it fosters the development of new technologies that will support the agency’s mission. To accomplish this, TSA must have a clear vision of its 

long-term technology needs. It must work with industry to make its vision a reality. 

In addition to better long-term planning, TSA would benefit from greater partnership with innovative small businesses. 

Today, far too often we see promising homeland security technologies go undeveloped because small businesses often lack the capital to undertake the expensive and 

time-consuming process of getting the technology tested. 

We should look at whether there are some best practices elsewhere in the Federal 

Government that could be employed here to address this major barrier to working 

with TSA. Broadly speaking, I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses 

present today on ways they believe TSA’s acquisition practices can be improved. 

Particularly, I look forward to hearing how improvements can be made that foster 

consistency and compliance with Federal acquisition regulations and Departmentwide directives. 

In TSA’s short history, we’ve seen when it comes to administrative matters—be 

they personnel or procurement—TSA does not do ‘‘novel’’ well. 

That is why Congress acted to subject TSA to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 

in 2007. I do believe that technology acquisition by TSA is an area ripe for more 

robust transparency and accountability. Implementing such reforms will be beneficial for both stakeholders and taxpayers alike. 
6 

Before yielding back Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you on the bipartisan approach you have taken to the issue of TSA acquisitions and potential reforms. Your willingness to address issues regarding TSA’s lackluster performance as 

it relates to small business contracting is appreciated. 

Mr. HUDSON. I thank the gentleman. I thank you for your comments. I appreciate the relationship we have had working in a bipartisan way to move this forward. 

Also, in recognizing Ranking Minority Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, let me also 

say I appreciate our working relationship and your willingness to 

be a partner as we work to make these improvements. 

At this time, Mr. Thompson, I will recognize you for any statement you may have. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank the witnesses for appearing here today. 

Earlier this year the subcommittee continued its long-standing 

tradition of conducting oversight of TSA’s acquisition practices 

when it held a hearing with representatives from TSA, GAO, the 

DHS Inspector General, and the Department of Science and Technology Directorate. The testimony received at the hearing revealed 

that TSA continues to struggle to comply with Federal regulations 

and Department-wide directives when purchasing and deploying 

security-related technologies, does not monitor and effectively deploy its existing inventory of technology equipment, and comes up 

short when it comes to contracting with small businesses. 

Last year TSA spent $2.39 billion on goods and services. With 

billions of taxpayers’ dollars being spent by TSA every year, the 

majority of which goes toward acquiring security-related technologies, it is critical that every dollar be accounted for and used 

to address known and emerging security vulnerabilities. 

To accomplish that TSA must set forth the technological requirements for each acquisition, including what existing capability gaps 

would be addressed. While this may sound like a basic, commonsense task, it is one that, according to GAO, TSA has repeatedly 

failed to conduct. 

In fact, in 2009 GAO reported that TSA failed to conduct a costbenefit analysis prior to purchasing and deploying over $100 million worth of AIT machines. Had TSA conducted such an analysis 

and considered privacy concerns, approximately $40 million could 

have been saved. Certainly some of that money could have been 

put to far better use by supporting promising technologies developed by small businesses. 

Wisely spending taxpayers’ dollars on security-related technologies also require a strategic vision. For too long TSA has allowed the most recent security incident to drive an often rushed effort to acquire and deploy new technologies. While the agency 

needs the flexibility to respond to emerging threats, such flexibility 

should not come at the expense of a long-term vision. 

I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses about how 

they believe TSA’s acquisition practices can be improved. Specifically, I am pleased that Mr. Falconer has joined us today. His experience, I think, will be enlightening for the Members of this committee. 
7 

I look forward to hearing from him also on how TSA can improve 

its contracting performance as it relates to small businesses. Small 

businesses play a key role in both job creation and innovation. It 

is essential to both our economy and security posture for TSA to 

effectively partner with small businesses. 

Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan approach the Chairman has taken to conducting oversight and drafting legislation addressing TSA’s acquisitions challenges. 

Mr. Chairman, and I might add at this point that this whole acquisition situation has been an on-going, never-ending saga for 

those of us who have been on the committee a while, but especially 

people who do this for a living. At some point we are going to have 

to get our arms around it and just make it work and make it happen, and I look forward to your legislation as one of the opportunities for that to make it happen. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BENNIE G. THOMPSON

JULY 17, 2013 

Earlier this year, the subcommittee continued its long-standing tradition of conducting oversight of TSA’s acquisition practices when it held a hearing with representatives from TSA, GAO, the DHS Inspector General, and the Department’s 

Science and Technology Directorate. 

The testimony received at that hearing revealed that TSA continues to struggle 

to comply with Federal regulations and Department-wide directives when purchasing and deploying security-related technologies, does not monitor and effectively 

deploy its existing inventory of technology equipment, and comes up short, when it 

comes to contracting with small businesses. 

Last year, TSA spent $2.39 billion on goods and services. With billions of taxpayer 

dollars being spent by TSA every year, the majority of which go toward acquiring 

security-related technologies, it is critical that every dollar be accounted for and 

used to address known and emerging security vulnerabilities. 

To accomplish that, TSA must set forth the technological requirements for each 

acquisition; including what existing capability gap would be addressed. While this 

may sound like a basic, common-sense task, it is one that, according to GAO, TSA 

has repeatedly failed to conduct. In fact, in 2009, GAO reported that TSA failed to 

conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to purchasing and deploying over $100 million 

worth of AIT machines. 

Had TSA conducted such an analysis, and considered privacy concerns, approximately $40 million could have been saved. Certainly, some of that money could have 

been put to far better use by supporting promising technologies developed by small 

businesses. 

Wisely spending taxpayer dollars on security-related technologies also requires a 

strategic vision. 

For too long, TSA has allowed the most recent security incident to drive an often 

rushed effort to acquire and deploy new technologies. While the agency needs the 

flexibility to respond to emerging threats, such flexibility should not come at the expense of a long-term vision. I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses 

about how they believe TSA’s acquisition practices can be improved. 

Specifically, I am pleased that Mr. Falconer has joined us today. I look forward 

to hearing from him regarding how TSA can improve its contracting performance 

as it relates to small businesses. Small businesses play a key role in both job creation and innovation. It is essential to both our economy and security posture for 

TSA to effectively partner with small businesses. 

Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the bipartisan approach the Chairman 

has taken to conducting oversight and drafting legislation addressing TSA’s acquisition challenges. I look forward to continuing to work with you to find ways to enhance TSA’s performance in a manner that bolsters Department-wide acquisition reforms. 

Mr. HUDSON. I thank you, Mr. Thompson, for your remarks. 
8 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that opening 

statements may be submitted for the record. 

But we are pleased today to have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us. 

Mr. Marc Pearl has served as the president and CEO of the 

Homeland Security and Defense Business Council since 2008 and 

represents the policy interests of the leading large, mid-size, and 

small companies that provide homeland security technology, product, and service solutions to our Nation. 

Mr. Pearl previously served as general counsel and senior vice 

president of Government affairs at the Information Technology Association of America, and chief of staff and legislative counsel to 

former U.S. Representative Dan Glickman when the Congressman 

was Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. 

We also have Ms. Shene ́ Commodore, who is the Government 

contracts and business manager with Intertek Testing Services, 

where she leads the efforts in Government compliance and business 

development responsibilities. She is testifying on behalf of the Security Industry Association, the leading trade association for electronic and physical security solution providers. 

Ms. Commodore is a certified professional contract manager with 

over 20 years of experience providing acquisition support, contract 

management, proposal assistance, marketing, and financial auditing services to the Government and private sector. Her experience 

includes proposal preparation for General Services Administration, 

developing strategic partnerships, creating the negotiating contracts, business development, small business program development, 

and acquisition training services. 

Finally, Dr. Dolan Falconer is the co-founder and chief executive 

officer of ScanTech Holdings, LLC, an electron beam and X-ray 

technology small business. Dr. Falconer has 25 years of nuclear industry experience in the management of engineering projects for 

private industry and the Federal Government. Prior to co-founding 

ScanTech, Dr. Falconer co-founded and served as executive vice 

president of Parallax, an environmental and nuclear engineering 

company, where he was instrumental in growing the company from 

its start-up stage to having a National presence with over 150 engineers, scientists, and technicians. 

The witnesses’ full written statements will appear in the record. 

The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Pearl to testify. 

STATEMENT OF MARC A. PEARL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

HOMELAND SECURITY & DEFENSE BUSINESS COUNCIL 

Mr. PEARL. Thank you. 

Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Richmond, Ranking Member Thompson, and Congressman Rogers, thank you for the opportunity for giving the Homeland Security and Defense Business 

Council an opportunity to discuss industry’s perspectives on TSA 

acquisition reform. As a way of background, the council’s mission 

is to encourage a collaborative dialogue between Government and 

industry, focusing on identifying the ways that we can better work 

together to address our Nation’s critical homeland security needs, 

especially with regard to acquisition process and technology development. 
9 

This subcommittee, as has been already stated, already knows 

that TSA acquisition programs represent billions of taxpayer dollars. Technology needs make up a significant part of that annual 

budget and plays a critical role in TSA’s ability to accomplish its 

mission. 

Unfortunately, as GAO reports point out, many of DHS’s and 

TSA’s major acquisition programs often cost more than expected 

and take longer to deploy than planned and/or deliver less capability than promised. 

To address these issues, the council recommends: First, the continued use and development of open and transparent communication forums that allow for early and on-going two-way communication between industry and Government; and second, the development of a long-term strategic technology investment plan. 

First, with regard to communication. Early engagement with industry—early engagement—long before an RFI or an RFP is needed, so that DHS and TSA can conduct market research; study current technologies; understand what is possible, what is practical; 

learn industry terminology; and more, most importantly, define its 

requirements. Clearly-defined needs and concise requirements, particularly those that contain metrics, are critical factors in industry’s ability to provide the Government, in a timely and cost-effective manner, with the technological capabilities that it needs. 

DHS and TSA recognize this and are working to find new ways 

to expand and deepen their engagement with industry. My written 

testimony provides a number of recommendations of how this 

progress can be continued into the future. Allow me an opportunity 

to just mention a few. 

They must continue to conduct face-to-face meetings and create 

forums that allow discussions on general technology needs and conceptual frameworks. They need to hold more, and more focused, 

smaller industry days to become less reliant on RFIs, which industry finds to be costly in terms of both time and dollars. Last, consider the increased use of draft RFPs as opposed to just putting 

forth an RFP. 

With regard to the strategic technology investment plan: DHS 

and TSA have made substantial progress in trying to communicate 

their future priorities, direction, and thinking to and with industry 

as a stakeholder. Strategic plans are a helpful start but the current 

plans do not address technology in depth. Congress should encourage them to take the planning process a few steps further and develop a mid- to long-term strategic technology investment plan. 

The council urges this subcommittee and TSA to look at, for example, NASA’s 2012 strategic space technology investment plan as 

a possible template. The NASA plan is effective because it seeks to 

narrow the focus of the technology field and provides guidance on 

technology investments over the next 4 years with the context of 

a 20-year horizon. 

Please understand that a strategic technology investment plan is 

not a list of what the Government is going to buy in the future, 

but it is rather a flexible document that can be adapted if the risk 

profile dramatically changes. Most importantly, this kind of plan 

provides industry with a blueprint for the agency’s future needs 

and thinking. It gives both Government and industry the time to 
10 

plan appropriately by aligning financial and personnel resources towards addressing the highest priority needs, which is providing the 

foundation and a framework to achieve mission success. 

Even if only some of the measures that I have discussed today 

in both my oral and written testimony were to become part of the 

overall acquisition process, the council and its members strongly 

believes that they, together with the outreach efforts that are being 

carried out by DHS that is already taking place, will help TSA acquire the capabilities needed for mission success that are timely, 

cost-effective, and accountable, in a manner that encourages competition, innovation, and investment by industry in the homeland 

security enterprise. 

We very much appreciate the opportunity to provide the collective perspectives of industry on TSA acquisition reform and stand 

ready to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearl follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARC A. PEARL

JULY 17, 2013 

Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Richmond, and distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee, I am Marc Pearl, president and CEO of the Homeland Security 

& Defense Business Council (Council), a non-partisan, non-profit organization that 

is made up of the leading large, mid-tier, and small companies that provide homeland security and homeland defense technology, product, and service solutions to our 

Nation, and more specifically, as it relates to today’s hearing, to TSA. We thank you 

for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss industry perspectives on TSA acquisition reform. 

The Council sponsors and promotes programs and initiatives that encourage a collaborative dialogue between industry and Government that focuses on identifying 

ways we can better work together to address our Nation’s critical homeland security/homeland defense issues. Over the past few years, we have, for example, worked 

closely with the DHS Management and S&T Directorates on improving the acquisition process and the process for developing and finding advanced technologies. 

As the Members of this subcommittee already know, TSA acquisition programs 

represent billions of taxpayer dollars in life-cycle costs and support a wide range of 

aviation security missions and investments. Technology needs make up a significant 

part of TSA’s annual budget and play a critical role in its ability to accomplish its 

mission. However, as Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports continue to 

point out, many of DHS and TSA’s major acquisition programs often cost more than 

expected, take longer to deploy than planned, or deliver less capability than promised. 

Industry and Government are striving for the same goal—for TSA (and the entire 

homeland security enterprise) to acquire the capabilities needed for mission success 

through processes that are timely, cost-effective, accountable, and that encourage 

competition, innovation, and investment in the homeland security marketplace. No 

one can afford to have time, money, and resources wasted. 

Members of the Council firmly believe that open, transparent, and substantive 

communication, along with strong, on-going collaborations between the Government 

and industry long before and throughout the acquisition process is a critical aspect 

to achieving this goal and addressing the GAO’s concerns. 

I do want to state unequivocally that DHS and TSA have truly begun to recognize 

this need, and are working hard to find creative and substantive ways to engage 

with industry—and not just with us in the role of contractor. We applaud their efforts and many of the recent changes that have occurred. In my testimony today, 

I would like to highlight some of the success stories and also suggest constructive 

ways that DHS, TSA, and Congress can continue the progress into the future. 

The Council believes the following actions will assist the process of acquisition reform and ensure that TSA has the ability to acquire innovative technologies in a 

cost-effective and efficient manner: 

• The development of a long-term strategic technology investment plan and multiyear budget plans; and 
11 

1 See http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/sstip.html. 

• Continued use and development of open and transparent communication forums 

that allow for early and on-going two-way communication between Government 

and industry. 

In particular, we believe that communication between Government and its industry partners can be improved through: • Forums that allow for discussions surrounding general needs and conceptual 

frameworks sufficiently in advance of an upcoming program or contract; • Smaller and more focused industry days; • Less reliance on Requests for Information (RFIs); • Increased use of draft Requests for Proposal (RFPs); • Creation of an Acquisition Timeline Model and Acquisition Status Dashboard; 

and • Education of the TSA workforce on acceptable types of Government/industry engagement. 

I. DEVELOPMENT OF A MID- TO LONG-TERM STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT PLAN

AND MULTI-YEAR BUDGET PLANS

The communication of the Government’s future technology needs, vision, and intended direction is of critical importance to industry. It should also be of equal importance to legislators that are conscious of using tax dollars in an effective and efficient manner. Industry does not have limitless resources to devote to the development and testing of homeland security solutions. Particularly in the current economic environment, no one wants to waste time and money building speculative 

technologies or solutions that ‘‘should’’ or ‘‘could’’ be incorporated into—in this 

case—our Nation’s transportation security efforts. In order to provide the solutions 

that TSA needs to operationalize its mission, industry must have advance notice of 

the need and an ability to provide long-range solutions to meet those needs. 

DHS and TSA have made substantial progress in trying to communicate future 

priorities, direction, and thinking to industry through the use of such vehicles as 

industry days, FedBizOps, and strategic planning documents. We applaud the development of the 2012–2016 DHS Strategic Plan and the 2013–2016 TSA Office of Security Capabilities Strategic Plan. We are particularly appreciative of TSA’s willingness to have industry participate as a stakeholder in the planning process. 

While these documents are an important part of the planning process, they do not 

address technologies in depth. We strongly believe that DHS must take the planning process a few steps further and develop a mid- to long-term strategic technology investment plan. 

We point to the 2012 Strategic Space Technology Investment Plan1 that NASA 

issued as a good example. The NASA plan was created after the agency developed 

a series of technology roadmaps that defined its future needs based upon the results 

of a gap analysis. The plan is effective because it narrows the focus of the technology field and gives guidance on technology investment over the next 4 years, and 

within the context of a 20-year horizon. 

For purposes of demonstrating what we believe is a potentially useful template, 

and to assist the subcommittee in its deliberations, we have summarized below the 

component parts and type of information provided in NASA’s plan: 

• The technology roadmap specifies 14 plans for developing technologies in 14 

areas over the next 20 years. 

• It prioritizes and divides its investment approach into three levels of concentration. 

• Core Technologies (70%).—These are the most pressing near-term technology 

investments necessary to accomplish its mission. 

• Adjacent Technologies (20%).—These are additional high-priority investments 

that would be needed over the next 4 years. These are technologies that will 

take more time to development. 

• Complementary (10%).—These are the remaining needs from the technology 

roadmap. They have limited immediate relevance but they have the potential 

to bear relevance over the next 20 years. These technologies may require 

some investment now so that the capability will exist later. 

• The core, adjacent, and complementary technologies support goals in a four-pillar framework. Each pillar includes three components: (1) A strategic investment goal; (2) associated capability objectives; and (3) technical challenge areas 

underpinning those objectives. 

• The framework specifies the principles that will guide the investment strategy 

and portfolio execution. 
12 

• It includes a governance approach with frequent oversight and allows for the 

updating of the plan on a biennial basis. 

A strategic technology investment plan is not a list of what the Government is 

going to buy in the future. Instead, it is a flexible document that provides industry 

with a blueprint for the Government’s future needs and thinking. It also gives both 

the agency and industry the time to plan appropriately by aligning financial and 

personnel resources towards addressing the highest-priority needs. Any assistance 

that Congress can provide in guiding the development of a long-term strategic technology investment plan would go a long way in providing the foundation and framework for all stakeholders to achieve mission success. 

While it is no doubt difficult to develop, particularly under the current budget approval process, Congress and DHS could work together more effectively to develop 

multi-year budget plans, or at least a credible forecast of future investment activities at the time of an annual budget justification. This would provide industry with 

a more predictable homeland security acquisition environment, and a greater level 

of certainty, which is needed to make multi-million dollar technology investments 

and hiring decisions. 

II. CONTINUED USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN AND TRANSPARENT COMMUNICATION

METHODS AND FORUMS THAT ALLOW FOR EARLY AND ON-GOING INFORMATION EXCHANGE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY

The Council has long stressed the need for the Government to engage with industry prior to starting the procurement process. Early engagement (long before the 

issuance of a RFP) is needed so that DHS can conduct the appropriate market research, explore creative ways of understanding existing and emerging technologies, 

learn industry terminology, identify all of the potential companies that can provide 

the technology, and determine the correct scope of the requirements that best fit the 

existing vendor base. 

Clearly-defined needs and concise requirements, particularly those that contain 

metrics and differentiators, are critical factors in industry’s ability to provide the 

Government with the technological capabilities it needs in a timely and cost-effective manner. If the technical performance and testing requirements for technologies 

are not measureable or clearly communicated to industry, it raises the potential for 

an increased or lost cost of development, duplication of effort, and a resulting product or technology that fails to meet the Government’s expectations. Industry input 

is essential to help define and calibrate requirements to match objectives and 

achieve goals. The more complex the procurement, the more critical the need for an 

open information exchange. 

DHS and TSA are working hard to conduct outreach to and collect intelligent data 

from industry. Currently, there are a number of methods used to gather and exchange information with industry, including Industry Days, RFIs, Broad Agency Announcements (BAAs), monthly webinars, FedBizOpps, DHS website announcements, 

one-on-one vendor sessions, and outreach through industry associations, like the 

Council. 

It is important that DHS continue to use multiple forums for communication. The 

Government needs to ensure it has forums that allow for both one-on-one and group 

engagement. The Government also needs to have the flexibility to balance group 

interactions so that it can have productive communications with a manageable 

amount of people, as well as the ability to reach out, request, and share information 

with a broader audience, particularly those who do not reside in Washington, DC. 

The latter is an important aspect to ensuring the Government is viewed as open 

and transparent. 

In this regard, the Council recommends six ways to expand and improve current 

communication efforts before and during the acquisition process: 

1. Develop Forums That Allow for Discussions Surrounding General Needs and 

Conceptual Frameworks Sufficiently in Advance of an Upcoming Program or Contract.—This type of interaction in advance of a specific procurement will enable the 

Government to gather the information needed to help shape the desired outcome, 

better define and understand what is actually needed, and determine what is economically reasonable and technologically feasible. Here is a simple analogy to drive 

this point: Without a conceptual discussion about what the Government needs technology to do for them, they may prematurely define the need as a mop or broom 

when what they really need is a Swiffer. 

2. Conduct Smaller and More Focused Industry Days.—Industry encourages the 

use of smaller and more focused industry days that include breakout sessions that 

allow for interactive roundtable discussions with the Government. These types of 

sessions are a more valuable use of industry’s time and manpower. By narrowing 
13 

the focus of an industry day, the Government can reduce the amount of people in 

physical attendance and allow for more productive and interactive engagement with 

the attendees. These sessions could be video-taped and live-streamed over the internet to ensure Government transparency. Many of the component parts of DHS, including TSA, have started to incorporate breakout sessions into their industry days, 

and industry reports they result in a better exchange of information. 

3. Less Reliance on Requests for Information (RFIs).—Recently, there has been a 

substantial increase in the use of RFIs to seek advice and information from the private sector before a RFP is issued. While RFIs are a valuable tool for communication when used in the appropriate circumstance, they also have limitations. Government should not rely too heavily on RFIs because industry is finding that they do 

not have the time, money, and manpower to devote to them. Simply put, it sometimes costs too much to provide a formal response, and it is industry’s experience 

that many of the responses to RFIs often ‘‘sit on the shelf’’ and are not put to use. 

4. Increase the Use of Draft Requests for Proposal (RFPs).—Industry believes the 

Government would improve the outcome of contracts if it increased the use of draft 

RFPs in advance of the final version. By issuing a draft RFP, industry has an opportunity to comment and raise issues that the Government should consider, particularly those that relate to the design of the contract, the interpretation and specificity 

of the requirements, the impact to industry, and potential problems with the RFP 

that might impact cost, competition, or delivery. 

5. Create an Acquisition Time Line Model and Acquisition Status Dashboard.— 

The current procurement process takes too long, resulting in increased costs and 

delays as well as causing detrimental impacts to the homeland security mission. 

Currently, it can take a year to a year and a half—often longer—from the time mission requirements are published until contracts are in place to begin addressing 

those requirements. We recommend that DHS establish an acquisition time line 

model and set of best practice benchmarks or service-level agreements, depending 

upon the appropriate terminology, by which it will execute acquisitions. DHS leadership would need to manage to those time lines and address and report any exceptions to those benchmarks. 

Another way of improving the communication process would be to develop a 

‘‘dashboard’’ that shows industry the status of where the Government is in the acquisition process in relation to defined activities and milestones. This would save 

time and cut down on the amount of questions between industry and Government 

about where things stand in the process. 

6. Educate the Workforce on Acceptable Government/Industry Communication.— 

While there are numerous examples of Government employees that are diligently 

working to reach out to industry, this is not consistent across DHS or TSA. There 

have been a number of situations where certain employees will not meet with or 

communicate with industry due to fear that they are violating the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) or other ethics rules. It would be highly beneficial for Congress to show its support and encouragement for continued and responsible engagement between industry and Government. We believe that more efforts to educate 

the DHS and TSA workforce on the timing and manner in which they can engage 

with industry would help address this problem. 

III. RECENT SUCCESS STORIES OF GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT

It is important to point out to the subcommittee that there has been tremendous 

progress with regards to DHS and TSA’s willingness to engage with industry and 

treat us as a valuable stakeholder in the overall process and mission. We have seen 

numerous examples of the Government engaging with industry outside of the acquisition process to vet ideas and concepts, challenge and support Government thinking, and provide valuable thought leadership. This interaction helps build and 

strengthen the partnership and will improve DHS’ ability to accomplish its mission. 

Please allow me to share some of the most recent examples of how Government 

and industry have worked together to educate each other, share best practices and 

lessons learned, and change behaviors that occur during the acquisition process: 

1. Acquisition Risk Management Seminar.—This past March, the Council worked 

with the Management Directorate to host a 3-hour seminar before more than 50 

DHS contracting officers, acquisition specialists, and program managers that focused on explaining how industry assesses and mitigates risk in the acquisition 

process. The seminar was an opportunity for Government to gain a better understanding of industry’s perspectives, as well as to understand how risk mitigation decisions impact the bidding process and resulting outcome (in regards to cost, delivery, quality, competitiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency). TSA contracting officers 

took part in this seminar. 
14 

2. Mock Post-Award Debriefing Exercises.—The Management Directorate has 

worked through a number of industry organizations to create Mock Post-Award Debriefing Exercises for DHS contracting officers. Subject matter experts from industry serve as role players and engage with Government under a variety of scenarios 

that might occur when the Government debriefs and furnishes the basis for selection decisions and contract awards. The overarching goal of the exercises is to help 

the Government learn to communicate the right information with industry during 

the debriefing process. TSA officials have taken part in these exercises. 

3. Input an Cost Estimation And Schedule Management Policies.—Last Spring, 

the Council worked with the Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) 

program within the DHS Management Directorate to set up a small practitioner 

work group made up of SMEs from Government and industry to review and provide 

input on draft standards for cost estimation and schedule management. The 

workgroup met twice to review the language and suggest ways to strengthen the 

policy to achieve intended objectives. The workgroup had valuable discussions about 

the interpretation and impact of certain sections of the guidance and to identify additional provisions that would be needed to ensure compliance. Industry representatives were able to offer examples, suggested language, and lessons learned based on 

their experience with similar policies at other Federal agencies. 

4. Input on the Technology Foraging Process.—Through a series of small group 

sessions, SMEs from a number of Council member companies met with representatives from the S&T Directorate to provide input on the technology foraging process. 

The goal was to share industry’s experiences and suggest different ways that the 

Government could identify and evaluate existing or developing technologies that 

could support DHS mission needs. 

5. Government/Industry Focus Groups.—TSA has developed a set of focus groups 

with industry through the Washington Homeland Security Roundtable. These sessions have focused on identifying methods and processes by which TSA can effectively engage with industry on matters related to acquisition. 

CONCLUSION

We strongly believe that open, transparent, and substantive communication, along 

with continuous engagement between the Government and industry before and 

throughout the acquisition process is the key to reforming the acquisition process. 

DHS and TSA recognize the need and are succeeding in finding creative and unique 

ways of engaging with industry. While much progress has been made, we have identified a number of steps to continue the progress of acquisition reform into the future. 

We respectfully ask for your support in facilitating the following actions: 

• Urge DHS overall and TSA in particular to develop a long-term strategic technology investment plan and multi-year budget plans; and 

• Encourage them to continue to use and develop open and transparent communication forums that allow for early and on-going two-way communication between Government and industry. 

If these measures are built into the overall acquisition process, the Council and 

its members believe that TSA (and the entire homeland security enterprise) will acquire the capabilities needed for mission success in a manner that is timely, costeffective, accountable, and that encourages competition, innovation, and investment 

in the homeland security marketplace. 

On behalf of the Homeland Security & Defense Business Council, I appreciate the 

opportunity to provide the collective perspectives of industry on TSA acquisition reform. The Council stands ready to answer any additional questions you may have 

on these important issues. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Pearl. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Commodore to testify. 

STATEMENT OF SHENE ́ COMMODORE, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS & BUSINESS MANAGER, INTERTEK, TESTIFYING ON 

BEHALF OF THE SECURITY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Ms. COMMODORE. Good morning, Chairman Hudson, Ranking 

Member Richmond—— 

Mr. HUDSON. Is your button on there? You want to push the talk 

button? 
15 

Ms. COMMODORE. Good morning, Chairman Hudson, Ranking 

Member Richmond, and distinguished Members of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify with 

you today regarding Transportation Security Administration’s acquisition and procurement policies. My testimony today reflects 

over 20 years of experience in the area of Federal procurement, 

both from the Government and the private sectors, and that also 

includes TSA’s procurement process during this time. 

I am here representing Intertek Testing Services. This is a Nationally-recognized testing laboratory whose history goes back to 

Thomas Edison. But I am also here representing the Security Industry Association, who has a membership of over 480 companies 

which currently develop, install, and integrate many of the electronic security technologies in use by TSA today. 

Intertek is a member of Security Industry Association and I 

serve on the association’s Government relations committee. It is 

truly an honor to be here with you today representing these two 

outstanding organizations. 

Specific to Intertek’s role in the security industry, we test and 

certify products which help companies improve product performance, gain efficiencies in logistics and manufacturing, and also 

deter barriers to market. We also work with other organizations to 

create test procedures and methods which validate the compliance 

and validation of new technologies. 

The issue before us is procurement reform with TSA, and legislation that you have proposed, Chairman Hudson, is well received by 

the industry. As someone who works daily with the decisions made 

in Congress, the TSA, and several companies who sell directly to 

TSA, I can tell you that this is a welcome collaboration between 

Government and the industry. 

Open dialogue is even more critical to continue innovative 

growth in transportation technologies in order to protect our Nation with limited funds. The aging workforce, experience gaps, and 

the technology talent shortage are both global industry and Government problems. 

Contractors sometimes do not understand the requirements. Additionally, the lack of industry best practices on the Government 

side causes contracting staff to write unnecessary task or requirements in the solicitations, which then drive high acquisition costs. 

This can be prevented with more collaboration between industry 

and Government and also lead to additional Government savings. 

There are four key areas which I believe TSA should focus on to 

implement best practices in the procurement process. They are the 

acquisition planning, test and evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, and 

Government contract vehicles. While I will discuss these in limited 

detail now, my written testimony goes into greater detail. 

The first item: Acquisition planning. I will start off by saying 

there are three key phases to the Government contracting cycle: 

The pre-award phase, the award phase, and the post-award phase. 

The greatest risk in this cycle for all parties, industry and Government, is during the pre-award phase. It is, therefore, increasingly important that more acquisition planning takes place as early 

as possible. 
16 

By communicating with industry, Government can learn best 

practices and gain a better understanding of the level of effort required for completing task. This is the opportunity to conduct market research prior to drafting requirements. Therefore, it is also my 

belief that TSA should conduct more requests for information and 

allow comments on draft solicitations. 

The next item: Test and evaluation. New initiatives should be established with TSA regarding testing and evaluation offices to contain costs so that we have verified equipment to market faster to 

maintain the on-going safety of our Nation’s security. TSA should 

also limit testing requirements solely to labs that actually write the 

requirements, because equivalent testing can be done successfully 

through third-party laboratories. 

Regarding cost-benefit analysis, it is important that cost and 

benefits are measurable, accurate, realistic, timely, and beneficial. 

Contracting staff need to understand how to assess the realism of 

the cost in terms of the contract requirements. 

Last, Government contract vehicles. Government contract vehicles will afford TSA a streamlined procurement approach. Particularly with GSA, the contractors have already been verified and approved at discounted prices. This can also save TSA additional 

money. 

Again, thank you for the invitation for the committee today. On 

behalf of SIA and Intertek, we appreciate your efforts in this area 

and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Commodore follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHENE ́ COMMODORE

JULY 17, 2013 

Good morning Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Richmond, and distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 

the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) acquisition and procurement 

policies and practices. 

This morning my testimony reflects more than 20 years of experience in the area 

of Federal procurement and I have worked with TSA’s procurement process since 

that agency was established a little more than 10 years ago. 

I am here representing not only Intertek Testing Services, a Nationally-recognized 

testing laboratory whose history goes back to the days of Thomas Edison, but also 

the Security Industry Association, whose more than 480 member companies develop, 

install, and integrate many of the electronic security technologies purchased and in 

use by the TSA. Intertek is a member of the Security Industry Association and I 

serve on the association’s Government relations committee. 

It is truly an honor to sit here today, representing these two outstanding organizations. 

Specific to Intertek’s role in the security industry, we test and certify products, 

help customers improve performance, gain efficiencies in manufacturing and logistics, overcome market constraints, and seek to help our customers reduce risk. 

Intertek also develops test procedures and methods to validate the compliance of the 

implementation of new technologies. 

As the industry leader with more than 35,000 people in 1,000 locations in over 

100 countries, we can ensure that products meet quality, health, environmental, 

safety, and social accountability standards for virtually any market around the 

world. Additionally, Intertek holds extensive global accreditations, recognitions, and 

agreement and we have extensive knowledge and expertise in how to overcome regulatory, market, and supply chain hurdles. 

The issue before us is procurement reform at the TSA. The legislation Chairman 

Hudson is proposing has been well-received by the industry. As someone who works 

daily with the decisions made in Congress, the TSA, and several companies who sell 

directly to the TSA, I can tell you that collaboration with industry is always welcomed. 
17 

The aging workforce, experience gaps, and the technical talent shortage are global 

industry and Government problems. Additionally, since Congress has recognized the 

need for a professional acquisition workforce by establishing education, training, 

and experience requirements for entry into and advancement in the acquisition career fields for Federal agencies, industry collaboration and open dialogue is even 

more critical to continue innovative growth with transportation technologies in order 

to protect our Nation with limited funds. Contractors sometimes do not understand 

the requirements. Additionally, the lack of understanding of industry practices leads 

to Government contracting staff writing unnecessary tasks or tests requirements 

which drive high costs in the acquisition. This can be prevented with more collaboration between industry and Government and also lead to additional Government 

savings. We commend your efforts to encourage more communication and dialogue 

between Government and industry. 

There are Four Key Areas TSA should consider when implementing best practices 

to improve transparency with regard to technology acquisition programs: 

1. Acquisition Planning.—The Government contract cycle has three main phases; 

pre-award, award, and post-award. The pre-award cycle carries the most risks and 

is where acquisition planning takes place to identify requirements and associated 

costs with Government estimates. This is the opportunity to conduct market research and the best time to have discussions with industry, prior to drafting requirements. By communicating with industry, Government can learn best practices, 

common trends, and gain a better understanding of the level of effort required for 

completing tasks. TSA should conduct more requests for information, sources 

sought, and allow comments on the draft statement of work during the acquisition 

planning process. This will allow for a better acquisition plan that includes requirements that are both easy to understand and yield better pricing from prospective 

bidders. It is during this time that TSA can also identify small businesses that may 

be able to complete the work. 

2. Test and Evaluation.—New initiatives should be established with TSA testing 

and evaluation offices to contain costs and get products to market faster to maintain 

the on-going safety of our Nation’s transportation system. Security products are 

needed for open-source and closed-source areas. The testing of products validates a 

product’s safety and performance. Does the product function the way it is supposed 

to? Is it durable? Is it safe? Will it last? Testing and evaluation may include an assessment of a system, subsystem, or a component of a complete system. Additionally, the earlier testing begins in the process, the more chances for success of the 

product. Testing and evaluation should also include design review analysis, failure 

analysis, and corrosion analysis. 

Test standards are written to instruct engineers on how to conduct the proper test 

with specific test methods. Testing laboratories purchase test standards to stay 

abreast of required test methods. Accredited third-party testing laboratories like 

Intertek can test to various standards, although they did not write the test standard. It is important for contractors to know what information the agency would like 

to obtain from the test results and how the test data will be used in order to ensure 

the proper test method and how test equipment is part of the test evaluation process. In some instances, the agency requires test standards or specific test equipment 

where alternate test methods or test equipment can be used to provide the same 

information at different costs and time intervals. To ensure cost-effective, full and 

open competition, TSA should not limit testing requirements solely to companies 

that write the test standards, but include equivalent testing certification marks 

which are allowed to test to a variety of standards. By utilizing skilled testing laboratories other than those that have developed the test standards, it ensures the 

external validity (generalizability) of the test results. Product manufacturers and 

developers will be able to get their products tested and certified by more labs. TSA 

can then benefit from more thorough validation of security products to get these 

technologies to market faster. 

TSA recognizes the importance of getting products out faster and has released Request for Information (RFI), Solicitation Number: HSTS04–13–S–CT9999, ThirdParty Testing to identify third-party testing facilities capable of providing testing 

and evaluation certification for Transportation Security Equipment (TSE). Original 

equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of security devices would have their equipment 

tested by commercial third-party testing organizations before they brought their 

equipment to TSA to undergo its more formal test and evaluation process. We believe this will streamline TSA’s formal qualification process and increase the likelihood of security products’ success and get them to market faster. TSA would also 

be able to gather data which can then be used for cost-benefit analysis. 

The formal TSA T&E process begins with entry into Developmental Testing (DT) 

where product system and subsystems are assessed for their ability to satisfy 
18 

sought-after capabilities then assessed with Quality Testing (QT). By requiring 

third-party testing and certification, TSA can benefit from increased probability of 

quality security products being ready for an acquisition decision. Businesses will 

also save time and money because they are less likely to lose money retesting products and increase the likelihood of their products passing TSA testing requirements. 

Third-party testing certification would allow the TSA T&E workforce to save time 

therefore increasing their capacity to direct planning efforts. TSA’s test and evaluation organization can then focus more on the operational test and system evaluation 

processes. These efficiencies will also yield TSA more oversight needed to meet its 

acquisition plan goals for security products by being able to provide more management attention to product quality issues that may face the greatest risks. 

3. Cost-Benefit Analysis.—Cost-benefit analysis is critical to budget planning and 

accurate forecasts of project cost estimates. In conducting cost-benefit analysis, one 

must be knowledgeable about cost realism and cost reasonableness. TSA procurement and program staff need specific, measureable, attainable, realistic, timely costbenefit analysis guidelines for all major projects. Cost-benefit analysis guides should 

address the key elements of costs analysis, how to determine price reasonableness 

with emphasis placed on price analysis techniques and their appropriateness under 

a variety of contracting/procurement scenarios. Acquisition staff must understand 

the difference between price analysis, cost analysis, and cost realism while also 

being able to identify cost reasonableness based on the requirements. It is important 

for those involved in acquisition planning and program management to understand 

the meaning of cost realism and cost reasonableness to generate and to develop 

more accurate independent Government costs estimates. In accordance with the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) these terms are defined as the following: 

Cost Realism Analysis (FAR 15.101, 15.401, and 15.404–1(d)) 

Cost Realism Analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating 

specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the 

estimated proposed cost elements: 

• Are realistic for the work to be performed; 

• Reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and 

• Are consistent with the unique methods of performances and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. 

Based on the offeror evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation, you can then 

use the results of your analysis in selecting the offer that provides best value to the 

Government. 

Cost Reasonableness, FAR 31.201–3—Determining Reasonableness 

A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which 

would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Costs 

cannot be deemed reasonable if they are not allowable. 

Cost-benefit analysis training should include detailed policy for all of these criteria so that Government staff have the ability to recognize unrealistic costs estimates. This will work to ensure the creation of more realistic project costs so that 

TSA can operate within budget. One common mistake among program and procurement staff is the lack of understanding of how the contract requirements affect the 

level of effort needed per tasks and related costs which can also be deterred with 

cost-benefit analysis procedures. 

It is imperative that cost-benefit data is maintained and reviewed on an on-going 

basis. To prevent cost-benefit data limitations because of the rapid change in technology; internal controls need to be implemented to maintain, compare, and reconcile the data compiled from annual forecasts and spending reports. Data should 

be maintained to review and prepare an analysis based on actual spending and comparative data to validate recommended acquisition program changes. The data will 

also help validate the success of acquisition planning and forecasting. Annual reports should include the identification of the staff which contribute to the report as 

well as the data source and methods of the data used. Each department should use 

the same methods to calculate cost benefit data to ensure a fair and consistent analysis throughout TSA with the use of reliable aggregate data. 

4. Government Contract Vehicles—TSA should also consider using GSA schedules. 

The General Services Administration reviews the technical ability, management, 

and financial solvency of companies that want to provide product and services to 

the Federal Government. Companies with GSA schedules have already been vetted 

and the best price has already been negotiated. This will save procurement lead 

time so that contracts can be awarded faster and TSA will receive discounted rates 

by qualified vendors. The following GSA Schedules could be beneficial to TSA: 
19 

• Schedule 70—General Purpose Commercial Information Technology Equipment, 

Software, and Services; • Schedule 84—Total Solutions for Law Enforcement, Security, Facility Management Systems, Fire, Rescue, Special Purpose Clothing, Marine Craft and Emergency/Disaster Response; • Schedule 871—Professional Engineering Services; • Schedule 66—Scientific Equipment and Services. 

Again, I would like to thank the committee for the invitation to be here today. 

On behalf of the Security Industry Association and Intertek, we appreciate your efforts in this area and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Ms. Commodore. 

The Chairman now recognizes Dr. Falconer to testify. 

STATEMENT OF DOLAN P. FALCONER, JR., PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, SCANTECH IDENTIFICATION BEAM SYSTEMS, LLC 

Mr. FALCONER. Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member, Ranking Member of the full committee, and distinguished 

Members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Dolan Falconer. I am founder, president, chief executive officer, and vial-washer for ScanTech. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify about my perspectives relative to TSA acquisition reform, specifically how TSA can better tap into the technology and 

innovations of small business. 

The facts are clear: Small and innovative high-tech companies 

have significant barriers to achieving qualification and contracts 

for security screening technologies. Simply put, it takes a long 

time, extensive resources, and a lot of capital to successfully do 

business with TSA. 

My company is based in Atlanta, Georgia and is 100 percent privately funded. We are the leading innovator in advanced technology X-ray systems. They are designed and designated under the 

trade name SENTINEL and our systems are designed to inspect 

carry-on luggage on aircraft. 

SENTINEL is designed to meet TSA requirements for all of the 

needs for the airline industry. We are currently one if not the only 

small business that is in the process of qualifying such a system 

within TSA. 

SENTINEL has been certified by Underwriters Laboratory and is 

currently at the TSA laboratory in the qualification process. Reaching this point is a major accomplishment for a small business and 

we are very proud that we have made it this far and we haven’t 

taken a nickel of Government or public money to get here. 

That said, it has been a long and arduous process for us, which 

is par for small businesses within TSA. Let me explain this to you. 

We started the process in 2006 when TSA launched an effort to 

find a screening technology that would solve the problems with liquids on aircraft that we are all so familiar with. In response to this 

opportunity we submitted a white paper describing how we would 

solve the problem and address TSA’s needs. 

We secured millions of dollars of private funding and began the 

process of developing test beds and building several prototypes in 

order to prove that we could do what we claimed we could do, and 

eventually we became one of seven companies selected by TSA to 

go into the qualification process for this program. At this point we 

began to really realize how difficult it would be to do business with 

TSA. 
20 

It has taken us 7 years to get to this point, to the laboratory. But for a small business time is money. We have spent $20 million to 

get to this point, all private funding. We are not there yet. Time, 

more money, more time, more money. It is very difficult to solve 

the problem within TSA. 

At this point I was notified by our investors that they were getting tired of the time line, and they have since told us that they 

are looking at stopping funding because at the end of this process 

there is no assurance that you are going to get to a contract within 

the agency. That is okay for large businesses. Large, multi-billion 

dollar nationals do a lot of R&D. They have R&D budgets that they 

can move forward. 

But as a small business we cannot do that. We have to have an 

idea of where we are going. That currently does not exist within 

the agency. 

We made several recommendations in the areas that are problematic. One is privately-funded R&D. It should not be privately 

funded; there should be establishment of funding mechanisms to do 

the R&D phase. 

The requirement for Nationally-recognized third-party certification in our program, which is U.L. certification. Why would you 

get U.L. certification if the agency isn’t going to say they are going 

to buy your machine? That is a lot of money and a lot of time. 

Full and open competitions. This is very difficult for small businesses. I am competing with the largest businesses in the world in 

this sector. 

Prior access to TSL. Without access you can’t have the information to meet the standards, and so it is a very difficult process. 

Security requirements—everyone knows it is a Catch-22. Without 

a contract you can’t get the security clearance; without the security 

clearance you can’t get the contract. 

Finally, the unfunded qualification process, which is lengthy, 

takes forever to get through, and without funding you can’t get 

there. So there is no funding support there. 

There are bright spots. I have had a meeting with Administrator 

Pistole. My recommendations were taken. 

We believe that TSL is doing an exceptional job under Dr. Susan 

Hallowell. She is an advocate. There is a readiness review process 

that is in place that is there to help us get through the qualification process, and I would like to give her thanks for that publicly. 

My written testimony includes a list of recommendations, and I 

stand here to answer those recommendations here to the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Falconer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOLAN P. FALCONER

JULY 17, 2013 

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee. 

My name is Dolan Falconer and I am the founder, president, and chief executive 

officer of ScanTech Identification Beam Systems. LLC. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today about my perspectives on Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acquisition reform, and specifically how TSA 

procurement and acquisition practices can be improved to tap into the technology 

potential and innovations of U.S. small businesses. 
21 

TSA faces particular challenges in obtaining the most effective and efficient security technology to protect the traveling public and our economy from evolving 

threats. Small and innovative high-technology companies face a gauntlet of barriers 

to achieving Government qualification and contracts for security screening technologies. Simply put, it takes a long time, extensive resources, and a lot of capital 

to successfully do business with TSA. 

BACKGROUND

Based in Atlanta, GA, ScanTech is a 100% privately-funded, U.S. small business 

and a leading innovator of Advanced Technology (AT) X-ray inspection systems. 

ScanTech’s X-ray inspection systems are specifically designed to provide materially 

better and faster detection of hazardous and contraband materials, thereby increasing processing efficiency resulting in reduced costs, increased confidence, and greater peace of mind for the traveling public. 

Designated under the trademark SentinelTM (see attached brochure), our systems 

are designed to specifically protect checkpoints and inspect airline carry-on baggage. 

While nearly identical in overall appearance to existing checkpoint scanners currently deployed at U.S. airports, SentinelTM systems are anything but the same 

when it comes to technology and capabilities. SentinelTM provides improved imaging, better spatial recognition, and advanced material discrimination algorithms to 

automatically differentiate and identify explosives, flammable liquids, and other 

hazardous materials and substances that may be hidden deep within screened baggage and packages. 

With a footprint very similar to traditional X-ray scanners, SentinelTM systems 

can quickly be installed and easily maintained at existing checkpoints without 

major infrastructure modifications. In addition, once installed, SentinelTM systems 

have built-in hardware and software upgrade capabilities that negate the need to 

replace the entire system as technology improves and threats evolve. 

SentinelTM is specifically designed to meet TSA requirements for the inspection 

of carry-on baggage, handbags, brief cases, laptop computers, small parcels, and 

packages that pass through airport checkpoints. Employing dual-energy, multi-view 

material discrimination with proprietary Automatic Threat Identification and Modular Threat Adaptation technology, SentinelTM provides a significant advantage and 

superior threat reduction over traditional and airport checkpoint X-ray systems. 

ScanTech is currently one of, if not the only U.S. small business in the process 

of qualifying such a system with TSA. SentinelTM has already been certified by Underwriter’s Laboratory (UL) for Safety and Electromagnetic Compliance (EMC) and 

is currently at the TSA Transportation Safety Laboratory (TSL) in Atlantic City, 

New Jersey being prepared for the TSA AT Qualification Test. 

Although we consider reaching this point in the TSA acquisition process a major 

accomplishment, it has been a long and arduous process and is indicative of the 

challenges that face small technology businesses doing business with TSA. 

Please let me explain further. 

We began developing SentinelTM in 2006 when TSA launched a search for new 

screening technology for carry-on baggage that could detect threats like those that 

were to be used in an alleged plot to blow up as many as 10 planes in mid-flight 

from the United Kingdom to the United States using liquid explosive compounds 

brought on board in carry-on luggage. 

TSA invited interested companies to submit white papers for consideration, and 

in response, ScanTech initiated the development of SentinelTM, a four-plane platform architecture designed to address specific deficiencies in the then-current technology. After securing millions of dollars of private funding to support product development and design and to build and test several test beds and prototypes, ScanTech 

became one of seven companies and the only U.S. small business down-selected by 

TSA to enter its new AT X-ray qualification program. 

It was at this point that the realities of doing high-technology business with TSA 

as a U.S. small business and the challenges associated with navigating the TSA procurement process became apparent to me. 

SMALL BUSINESS CHALLENGES

Let me explain: 

Development of our next generation of X-ray screening technology began 7 long 

years ago and has taken over $20 million of private equity funding to reach this 

point. This is more time and money than most small businesses can sustain without 

Federal funding support. 

Several significant factors as described below combined to create a nearly insurmountable barrier of time and money for small businesses. Although these are spe-
22 

cific to the technology channel we are pursuing within TSA, I believe they are indicative of the challenges facing most high-technology small businesses trying to do 

business with TSA: 

1. Privately-Funded R&D.—When TSA initially identified the AT X-ray acquisition requirement, no Federal funding was made available to support R&D activities. As a result, all ScanTech’s R&D effort has been 100% privately funded. 

No taxpayer dollars have been used. Unfortunately, most high-technology small 

businesses cannot secure sufficient private equity funding to support years of 

R&D required to bring products to the technology readiness level required by 

TSA to acquire a product. 

2. Nationally Recognized Third-party Laboratory (NRTL) Certification.—TSA 

required NRTL certification before SentinelTM would be accepted for qualification testing. As a result, SentinelTM was sent to the Underwriter’s Laboratory 

(UL) to meet the NRTL certification requirement. NRTL certification prior to 

qualification testing requires the investment of significant time and money before confirmation that the technology meets TSA performance standards and 

has a real path to eventual acquisition by TSA. 

3. Full and Open Competition.—The AT X-ray acquisition was a full and open 

competition. A small business set-aside provision was not included for ScanTech 

to compete for. In addition to having to compete directly against large business 

for this procurement opportunity, the acquisition also contained several requirements that indirectly precluded small businesses from participating even in the 

full and open competition. For example, vendors were required to provide TSA 

with five systems for evaluation and testing at the vendor’s cost. Delivering five 

systems to TSA requires a significant commitment of capital that most small 

business cannot support. 

4. Prior Access To TSL.—Acceptance for qualification testing required ScanTech 

to have access to data that could only be acquired at TSL. As a result, small 

businesses must have access to TSL prior to submitting a compliant data package for TSA review and approval to proceed with qualification testing. However, 

TSL is typically full with other mission elements that take priority over scheduling small businesses for this data collection. 

5. Security Requirements.—Acceptance for qualification testing required 

ScanTech to have access to Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and National 

Security Information (NSI). As such, small businesses must invest both time 

and money in securing the clearances necessary to participate in the acquisition 

process, however, clearances are only granted to parties with a contract providing a need-to-know. 

6. Unfunded Qualification Process.—The qualification process was unfunded. 

ScanTech’s investors have invested over $20 million in reaching this point, but 

must commit even more private funds to get through qualification. The Government should provide funding assistance to small businesses that have taken a 

technology to the point of qualification. 

TSA COMMITMENT

On July 19, 2012, I met with the TSA administrator and the assistant administrator for acquisitions to discuss these issues and their associated impact on small 

businesses and to share our lessons learned. During this meeting, we discussed the 

challenges associated with small businesses not having the advantage of access, familiarity, and previous contact with TSA technical staff. I emphasized the fact that 

small businesses, especially those that have no previous experience in dealing with 

Governmental procurement processes, are in need of technical procurement assistance, especially in the case of high-tech services or products, where knowledge of 

the processes and procedures can mean the difference between survival and success 

or failure. I presented the following recommendations following our meeting: 

1. Assign a subject matter expert to assist us and other small businesses to 

quickly resolve technical questions and requirements. 

2. Assign a contract officer’s technical representative (COTR) earlier in the 

process to assist us and other small businesses navigate the technical procurement process. 

3. Conduct an advanced technical visit of our facility in Atlanta by TSA technical management. TSA management had little or no prior knowledge of 

ScanTech’s technology or its capabilities and an advanced visit would provide 

a baseline understanding of our technology and its potential for addressing key 

threats and vulnerabilities at the Nation’s checkpoints. 

I am happy to announce that our recommendations were not ignored and have 

been implemented by TSA. 
23 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY LABORATORY

In December 2012, ScanTech signed a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement to enter TSL to access the explosive materials required to proceed with 

data collection and qualification of our SentinelTM system. TSL has established a 

Readiness Assistance Program that is structured to assist vendors understand and 

meet TSA technical standards and requirements and ScanTech has received significant readiness assistance in preparing for TSA qualification through this program. 

Readiness assistance is fully supported and endorsed by the TSL Director, Dr. 

Susan Hallowell. Dr. Hallowell is a leading advocate for high-technology small businesses and has worked hard to ensure that we are aware and informed of the requirements and processes necessary to successfully maneuver through the qualification process. 

Without Dr. Hallowell’s stewardship and advocacy, we would still be years away 

from qualification. I personally commend her efforts and leadership in bringing 

small business innovation to the forefront of TSL’s mission to identify and vet new 

technologies. 

TOP THREE RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on my experience from a small business perspective, I offer my top 3 recommendations for TSA acquisition process changes to bring more competition and 

innovation to the ever-evolving security market to effectively and efficiently address 

emerging threats to homeland security. 

1. Change the culture to foster accelerated innovation through small business 

participation. Acquisition regulations and requirements are complex, confusing, 

and constantly changing which is a big disadvantage to small businesses and 

newcomers to Government work. 

a. Elevate the role of the small-business advocate and define specific and meaningful performance metrics (time- and duration-oriented) that provide substantive benefits to procuring and utilizing the best technology. 

b. Change the acquisitions process to foster timely, cost-efficient, and compliant 

qualification submittals, testing, and proposals. Use parallel processes instead 

of sequential processes. For example: Except for meeting the electrical and radiation safety requirements, the other standards for NRTL should be completed after accepted for testing at TSL. Requiring the completion of all NRTL 

testing prior to acceptance into TSL is a financial burden for a small business 

and lengthens the process. 

c. Revise the existing processes to be more nimble and responsive to industry 

innovations and concerns. A simplified process would reduce the delay between initial White Paper and Qualification Data Package (QDP) submittals 

and acceptance, and laboratory tests to demonstrate the innovative aspects of 

needed technology (e.g. liquids and gels kept in bags). 

d. Devise and mandate performance measures and incentives to align the procurement and contracting process with objectives to obtain and deploy the 

best technology in a faster, fairer manner. 

2. Ease the entry-level requirements for promising technologies. 

Entry-level requirements are too high and rigorous to encourage the development of new and promising technologies by small businesses and newcomers to 

Government work. 

a. Amend the extensive and rigorous qualification and testing process for new 

and innovative technologies to allow and encourage small business participation and their ability to fairly compete against large or global companies. For 

example: Security clearances serve as a barrier to entry. Clearances are not 

granted unless the company has an existing contract. A small business with 

innovative technology may not have on-going Government contracts. Assist 

and facilitate small businesses in obtaining the necessary DD254 and get individuals cleared in a timely manner once the technology White Paper is approved, to allow necessary access to procurement and technical information. 

b. Add small-business and innovative technology set-asides for technology procurement. The current passenger checkpoint technology acquisition process is 

a Full/Open Competition and does not provide a ‘‘pre-investment model’’ for 

small business (i.e. includes requirements like a minimum of five X-ray 

screening systems to gain entry into the program), which requires significant 

finances and time. Small business is unfairly expected to compete head-on 

with very large, multi-billion dollar companies that have extensive Government relationships and resources. 

c. Allow involvement by the relevant program experts, along with the contracting officer, for availability to the submitting business to address the mul-
24 

titude of questions relating to technical, process, and submittal issues. This 

provides more timely responses and expedites the process by getting not just 

direction but clarification and understanding of the requirements and why 

they were formulated. For example: Data Collection: provide a clear path to 

acquiring the necessary testing data needed to complete the QDP. Small businesses and newcomers to Government procurement typically only have access 

to simulant explosives, not real threats/explosives. A solution to this is to 

have the CRADA ‘‘pre-approved’’ upon acceptance of the White Paper, with 

a testing slot guaranteed at the TSL. The qualified passenger checkpoint Advanced Technology X-ray companies are all large size, and have equipment 

deployed at TSL and TSIF. 

d. Minimum Base Unit Requirements: TSA defines various ‘‘levels’’ of screening 

machines and associated requirements. The base-level requirement has 

changed many times since 2009 and is constantly evolving with the lessons 

learned, future considerations, and shifting threats. One section of the TSA 

procurement specification lists an electronic diverter for scanned bags as well 

as a bin return system. In addition to the qualification requirements, a small 

businesses are also expected to address logistics and conveyors for acceptance 

into the TSL. The specification should list ancillary equipment as ‘‘optional’’ 

capabilities to preclude an unnecessary barrier to entry, with the just X-ray 

unit the base requirement. Threat detection is the germane requirement, not 

the bin return system, etc. This is an expensive and time-consuming requirement that is not necessary to assessing promising technologies. 

3. Establish an effective small business engagement strategy. Effective small 

business participation within the Federal sector requires the full commitment 

and engagement of the agency. Advocacy is a key component in all leading Government small business utilization programs. 

a. Assign a Government ‘‘Sherpa’’ for small businesses that request assistance 

to serve as an informed point of contact for learning available Government 

resources. 

b. Establish a small business technology ombudsman that acts as a problem 

finder and facilitator in navigating the qualification, testing, and procurement 

processes and requirements. For example: Most small businesses with new 

and innovative solutions typically have no prior experience or relationships 

within the specific TSA Programs and Offices. To obtain information and get 

questions answered, companies are not allowed to communicate directly with 

the programs or lab, but are required to go through the assigned Contracting 

Officer. This person is typically non-technical and not a subject-matter expert, 

and does not have the background or experience to address the issues and 

questions. Also, the questions and requests for information must be submitted 

in writing, with no allowance for personal communication or meetings with 

staff associated with the technology. This requirement does not foster new 

and innovative technology businesses; it serves the incumbent and large Government contractors who have access and relations. Technical representatives 

should be available to provide technical advice and clarifications. Small businesses should have direct access to the subject-matter experts to ensure that 

requirements and processes are clearly understood. 

c. Obtain recommendations from relevant industry associations and their small 

business membership related to acquisition plans and procurement methods. 

Does TSA have an industry advisory group for procurement recommendations? High-level TSA executives should be connected to the group with an 

objective to measurably simplify and streamline the process, for meeting the 

TSA mission’s objectives that are being thwarted by procurement practices. 

SUMMARY

In summary, ScanTech offers a viable solution to one of TSA’s most difficult technical challenges and we have found a way to navigate the arduous path before us, 

however, we still need your help! To date, we have been 100% privately funded. 

However, our private equity investors are now threatening to pull out, because of 

the uncertainty and time line associated with qualifying the technology for TSA acquisition and deployment. Small business funding in our sector would help 

ScanTech and other high-technology small businesses achieve success in TSA. Funding assistance would ensure that small business innovation is available to further 

strengthen TSA and its critical missions. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Dr. Falconer. 

We appreciate you all being here and offering this testimony. 
25 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask questions. 

We have heard over the last year or so that TSA is making 

progress and encouraging—or engaging with the private sector. 

However, it is one thing for TSA to listen to the private sector’s 

concerns and recommendations and quite another to actually incorporate their feedback into a strategic acquisition plan. 

How confident are you—and I will open this up to any of the 

three—that TSA considers private-sector recommendations and 

concerns when planning for acquisitions? 

Dr. Falconer, you touched on that a little bit. I don’t know if you 

want to start off? 

Mr. FALCONER. You can legislate an agency to do something. On 

the ground it is a culture change. 

We hear a lot in the agency about, how can I take the risk of 

a small business, home-grown shops, of doing things? I will tell 

you, the rest of the Government has figured it out. 

DOD doesn’t have a problem; DOE doesn’t have the problem; 

NASA. They have effective small business programs. It is cultural. 

They understand that innovation comes from small business and 

they facilitate programmatically the process of getting that innovation to the playing field. 

So I think the legislation is great. Reform is a starting point. But 

without the full support of the agency you can’t affect cultural 

change. It is cultural change. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, thank you. 

Anyone else want to—— 

Ms. COMMODORE. Yes. I would like to add to that. I agree with 

you, but in addition to that I think it is increasingly important, 

considering the changes with the FAR and other regulations, it is 

also imperative as part of that culture that the acquisition staff is 

properly trained so that they will know how to implement the information, take that feedback that they have received from the industry, and turn that into useful information so that they can implement the necessary changes. 

Mr. HUDSON. I appreciate that. 

Actually, Mr. Pearl, I guess I will direct to you, what do you 

think the value of having—you touched on this a little bit in your 

testimony, but the value of having a multi-year technology acquisition plan? Could you just maybe expound on that a little bit, why 

that is so important to the private sector? 

Mr. PEARL. Well, I think it is important not just to the private 

sector, Mr. Chairman, but it is important to the Congress, it is important to the administration, and it is important to the Nation. 

You cannot, for particularly in the area of technology deployment, 

you cannot do it always in just a real time and say, ‘‘Okay, this 

is what we need today,’’ and that is the end of either the funding 

or the plan. Congress is never going to give multi-year funding but 

they are going to, in essence, approve the concepts of planning, and 

that is why the acquisition kind of investment plan that we are 

talking about will give everyone an equal playing field on which 

they can develop, whether they are small business like Dr. Falconer is talking about or whether they are the large businesses 

who are bringing small businesses in. 
26 

It is all about going to and understanding what the metrics are, 

what the needs are and requirements are in the long run. You cannot always be—and I think, you know, Mr. Thompson talked about 

it—you cannot continually be a reactive agency. You cannot be a 

reactive Nation to only what is happening today, particularly in the 

TSA arena. 

We need to look forward with regard to what our general disasters, incidents may be, whether it be bad people or whether it be 

explosives, and then build your long-range planning around that. 

So that—anything that gets us to this kind of long-range thinking 

is, I think, helpful to all the parties—not just industry, but to the 

Nation and to everyone in between. 

Ms. COMMODORE. May I add something to that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HUDSON. Sure. 

Ms. COMMODORE. The other advantage of the multi-year planning, especially in terms of adding a cost-benefit analysis factor to 

best practices, is so that you will have a baseline established so 

that you can at least also begin to compare the cost-benefit factors 

to that. That is increasingly important because you should be—we 

should be assessing cost, we should be assessing all the benefits, 

but we should also be assessing the economic tradeoffs that we are 

receiving and benefiting from the advancement in this technology. 

All of that should be documented, as well. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, thank you. 

I have got a lot more questions but I am running out of time, 

so if I am going to be fair and equitable to everyone on the committee I need to call myself as well. 

So at this point the Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, gentleman from Louisiana, 

Mr. Richmond, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just start with, I think it is a quick question and it would 

probably be for Ms. Commodore and Mr. Pearl: Both of you all, I 

think, mentioned something that was close to identical, and my 

question is whether you all are thinking the same thing, one of 

which, I think, Ms. Commodore, you talked about pre-award acquisition planning and, Mr. Pearl, you talked about the draft RFP 

process. 

If done correctly they both accomplish the same goal that you all 

were mentioning, which is probably more communication in the beginning about what they need and communication from you all 

about—well, let me put it this way. They come out with theory and 

you come out with what happens in reality and how it really works 

and best ways to accomplish it. So that would be consistent? 

Ms. COMMODORE. That would be consistent. Also, to add to that, 

part of the problem when the requirements aren’t clear is that we 

may, as industry in the testing, you know, laboratory, as an expert 

you may not benefit from our expert advice because we are only 

quoting and responding to what you asked instead of what we 

know as experts should be quoted. I mean, there are various different standards and subparts to that standards that require different things and give you different results. 

So the earlier that we are involved in the planning stage so that 

we can work with you collaboratively as a partner, helping you 
27 

identify what kind of result you need and what works best, then 

yes, the better it is in the long run, as well. 

Mr. PEARL. Mr. Richmond, I would only say that one of the 

things that we have learned over the last few years in talking with 

the components and talking with folks even at the headquarters 

level and at the directorates is that the folks in Government know 

only what they know. They don’t know what they don’t know. If 

you only talk—and to be honest with you, if you only talk to individual companies—and there are many of the folks that go in technology and other components beyond TSA who have said to me, 

‘‘Oh, I talk to 200 companies a year’’—well, if you are only getting 

the ear, whether it is of 10 companies, of 20 companies, or 200 

companies, you are getting what their solution is and it may be a 

square peg going into a round hole. 

That is why earlier on in the process, where Government can, in 

essence, feel comfortable in communicating what its general ideas 

are holistically, then we are not building a square peg for what 

eventually becomes a round hole. We are, in fact, building together 

not as adversaries but as partners in a process that will lead to 

mission success. 

So, as I think Ms. Commodore said, as we have said, even long 

before the draft RFP, which is, ‘‘We are going to do this program,’’ 

when the germination of an idea is going, when we know what generally our general needs are, that is where you get market research 

and what the standards are and what the metrics might be so that 

everyone can be in lock step and we are not building waste—and 

spending wasteful dollars. 

Despite what Dr. Falconer says, large companies, mid-share companies, and small companies all together can no longer afford unlimited R&D projects. The basket ain’t there anymore. We all have 

to work together to make sure that what we are working on research and development-wise is what the Nation needs. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, thank you. I am sure my office is laughing 

because you just cited the motto in our office, which is to know 

what you know, but more importantly, know what you don’t know 

and find some people that do know it. 

Dr. Falconer, and Mr. Pearl just touched on the R&D aspect of 

it, and you talk about the fact that you all raised all this money 

and did all this research with no Federal assistance. I guess my 

question is: I know it would be beneficial, but there is no coordination in Department of Homeland Security or any of this—with the, 

for example, the SBI or a program that could actually give you all 

some help in terms of research and development funding or ability 

to do research and development? 

Mr. FALCONER. Yes. There are initiatives that are going on and 

there is currently closer cooperation with SBI on our programs 

within the agency. They haven’t gotten to the level of some of the 

other agencies that have done this for a long time. They are beginning to use it. 

They just came out with a BAA 13–05 in my sector. It is the beginning of a research and development process that was funded. It 

is not SBIR but it is similar. It is a research and developmentfunded thing by S&T, heavily coordinated with TSA to get to an 

end point, and there are some efforts going there. 
28 

But a challenge for small businesses are that, you know, TSA is 

big business and the SBIR funding levels are not very large for 

what you are trying to get to within TSA, meaning screening equipment. Those are high-dollar efforts. So SBIR will get you a start, 

and there should be close collaboration between the administration 

and the SBIR sources. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank, Mr. Chairman. I see that I hit zero just 

now so I was as efficient as you possibly can be. So with that, I 

yield back. 

Mr. HUDSON. Your timing is impeccable. 

The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full 

committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for any 

questions he may have. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

As I indicated in my opening statement, we have talked about 

this for quite a while. You know, DOD, NASA, they have been at 

it a long time, and the notion that we have to reinvent the wheel 

just because we have a new agency boggles me, because by reinventing the wheel it absolutely costs taxpayers more. It disadvantages small business opportunity because you have to grow the 

model, and if you don’t have the capacity or the resource base to 

grow the model you kind of languish at the bottom. 

So with your experience, Mr. Pearl and Ms. Commodore, would 

you see that as a reasonable suggestion for TSA more specifically 

to start looking at what others do rather than just trying to do it 

for you? You know, DOD—they buy a lot of screening stuff already, 

some which we couldn’t get that on the domestic side but they had 

it in Iraq and Afghanistan deployed, but we couldn’t get TSA to deploy the same equipment here. 

So what suggestions would you offer the committee to look at 

how other Federal agencies do it? 

Mr. PEARL. Well, I mean, I think that the question goes to a bigger answer than just the subcommittee’s work, and we have talked 

about this with Chairman McCaul, we talked about it with you, we 

have talked about it with many Members of the committee in ongoing dialogues over the years. Where you look to get best practices 

may even be in your home base, and part of the problem is is that 

not—the components don’t always talk to one another. So that is— 

they wouldn’t even have to go out to, you know, VA, or, you know, 

NASA or DOD; there are some best practices that are being observed that you may even have seen yourself in other subcommittee meetings and hearings where the processes of acquisition and procurement are being kind of pushed out. 

That is why we are encouraged in the close relationships and discussions and communications that we have conducted with the 

under secretary of management, with the under secretary of S&T, 

so the broader component of a kind of full, holistic approach to 

what is going on. 

I mean, I think—not to take anything away from the work of this 

subcommittee and what this bill may do, but if we only ‘‘solve the 

problem of TSA,’’ we are playing Whac-a-Mole. You know, we are 

solving a problem here and four others may pop up. 

So what our overall arching concern is to make sure that the program assessment and risk management, PARM, is going forward, 
29 

that the under secretary of management and the work that we 

have done trying to teach people how to—that a debrief is not 

about the protest but it is about how a business which didn’t get 

the contract can do better the next time. So that is what we are 

trying to in essence work on so that the processes of all of the Department are, in fact, sharing information. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Commodore. 

Ms. COMMODORE. What I would like to add to that, to also benchmark from the other agencies. For example, for small business goes 

to Department of Defense, they have them in protege programs. 

Even with DHS and the EAGLE program, which was for IT products and services, the acquisition staff really needs to sit down and 

work together and identify these larger contracts and the requirements and unbundle them and identify requirements that could be 

set aside specifically for small businesses. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. That has been suggested, by the 

way, from EAGLE 1 to EAGLE 2 and, you know, we just still suggest it. 

Dr. Falconer, from someone who has had a long-standing relationship with TSA, did you see the goalpost moved as you went 

along the way or was it clear from the beginning as a small business what standards and things you had to meet if you expected 

to do business in your area? 

Mr. FALCONER. Unfortunately, you know, standards development 

was going on in parallel with my program, so the standards 

evolved as we continued to move towards the goal line, so it was 

never clear the end point. That is one of the problems of funding 

is that it is just a long time. 

So there are some ways that we can feed in our input into that 

standards development process by having subject matter experts 

come out into the field and basically come to small businesses, see 

the innovation, and then feed it back. They always go to the big 

guys and the big guys are stagnant. 

Innovation comes in small business. You feed it into the front of 

the standards development process. The standards develop faster, 

you are able to anchor a goalpost, and now I can kick the football 

through the goalpost. But I can’t do it when the goalpost keeps 

moving around, and that is one of the major challenges to small 

business in this sector. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. 

The Chairman will now recognize other Members of the committee for questions they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our committee rules and practice I plan to recognize 

Members who were present at the start of the hearing by seniority 

on the subcommittee; those coming in later will be recognized in 

the order of their arrival. 

At this time I will recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Rogers, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pearl, you made reference in your opening statement that 

you had three recommendations. One of them was to elevate the 
30 

role of the small business advocate. So is it your view this SBIR 

is not achieving the goal of being a small business advocate within 

TSA? 

Mr. PEARL. I don’t think that was in my testimony but we have 

spoken to it before. The whole issue of—and that is discussions 

that we have had with SBIR folks at S&T, as well, that we need 

to make sure that they are bringing everybody in, that mentoring 

programs are focused on, that in point of fact that we encourage 

greater involvement, given the capabilities. Not even the big businesses have the full capabilities that the companies like Dr. Falconer’s has. 

So we are trying to figure out ways, both inside the DHS process 

and outside the process, where we can bring these folks together. 

We have had the person like Kevin Boshears in front of our group 

to talk about how we can better make those contracts towards partnership with the small businesses and, to be honest with you, with 

the mid-tier, as well. They are left out of the process, and so anybody who brings the capabilities and the solutions to the table need 

to be heard from. 

Mr. ROGERS. In the last 2 years since this committee has been 

working with you have you seen more communication on an information basis from your membership with the Department procurement and acquisition personnel? 

Mr. PEARL. Absolutely. I mean, one of the things that I cite in 

our written testimony is, for example, we were asked by the Department—the Management Directorate—early this year to run a 

risk management acquisition life cycle seminar and we had about 

50 or so program managers, contract officers not just from TSA, 

but TSA was there—from Secret Service, from CBP, from all of the 

component parts—coming together to kind of talk through what we 

in industry are going through so that they better understand the 

burden that we have in industry in terms of meeting the needs. 

Likewise, we have increased those kind of communications across 

the board. We are working on these mock debriefings so that the 

people that are running the debriefings understand what industry 

is going through—small, mid-tier, and large—across the board. 

So I must tell you, under the leadership of the under secretary 

of management, Rafael Borras, and Dr. Nayak is the chief procurement officer, that communication and the message—now, is it permeating all the way down to the components and every component 

equally? I would not say so. But that is what our goal is is to make 

sure that across the board that this whole process works better to 

everyone’s—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Have they been, in these discussions, receptive to 

this concept of an informal RFP? 

Mr. PEARL. The draft RFP aspect is being discussed, and it has 

been utilized by some of the components thus far. This is not a 

brand new concept. When you jump right to the RFP and you can’t 

change that and you bid on the way it is wired doesn’t get you 

there, and so if you are not going to have a complete RFI process 

or an early pre-process that Ms. Commodore was talking about 

then at the very least let’s have a draft RFP so that we can, in essence, provide and fine tune. Not to link it and not to have it driv-
31 

en by industry, but to say this is what industry can deliver if you 

just make these kinds of changes across the board. 

So we are—this is a concept, in response to today’s hearing, that 

we checked out with our members and it was almost unanimous 

that this is a process that we should consider, and we will be talking with the Management Directorate about it. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

Ms. Commodore, based on your knowledge, has TSA developed a 

cost-benefit analysis for major acquisitions? 

Ms. COMMODORE. Not one with all of the elements that I think 

need to be there to truly be able to assess all of the parameters 

now. And I—— 

Mr. ROGERS. Has your association been involved in these informal communications that Mr. Pearl has referenced with the TSA— 

Ms. COMMODORE. Yes. Several of our member companies have 

and I have. For example, in January there was an industry day for 

an RFI regarding third-party certification requirements for OEM, 

and that is a good example of a collaboration process early on to 

get requirements established. 

If I might add, I think, you know, reviewing and commenting on 

the draft solicitations and the RFI responses also go to provide additional validation with the multi-year planning, because, like Dr. 

Falconer here mentioned, the barriers to entry and the timeliness, 

you know, that small businesses need to get prepared and ramp up 

to being able to bid. So if there are active, you know, clear requirements with these multi-year plans that also allow small businesses 

to be able to assess the kind of certifications or clearances they 

might need so that when that time comes they will be able to bid. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. 

My time is up, but, Dr. Falconer, when somebody does recognize 

you again I hope you will visit this topic. I understand there is $2 

billion in DHS for grants—small business grants—across the entire 

agency, not just TSA. I would like for you to visit why you haven’t 

been able to participate in that, whenever somebody gets a chance 

to recognize you. 

I am sorry I went over. Yield back. 

Mr. HUDSON. I thank the gentleman. 

At this point I—Chairman will recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. Brooks, for any questions she may have. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will yield a little bit of my time for Dr. Falconer to answer Congressman Rogers’ question. 

Mr. FALCONER. Great. Thank you. 

Yes, there has been an increase in grant-directed monies within 

DHS, and unfortunately, we have not received any of the grant 

money and where we are going. I don’t know whether it is we are 

so mature now—grants are typically directed towards the R&D sector. 

We are beyond R&D; we are in an acquisition cycle. Our system 

is at TSL in the qualification process. It has its own set of challenges to maintain the capacity to go through the qualification 

process is where I am focused. 

We entered the program in 2006. At that point in time I don’t 

think that grant structure was directed heavily towards TSA. If 
32 

you go back and look at some of the metrics there were a lot of 

SBIR activity and some early BAA and looking at RFIs around this 

nuclear issue of inserting a nuclear weapon. That was DNDO and 

DHS, not specifically down to the TSA level, which is looking at air 

traffic—the airline business. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Mr. Pearl, you mentioned in your testimony the 

Government shouldn’t rely too heavily on RFI process because industry is finding they don’t have the time, the money, the man 

power to devote to it. Do you have any sense, on average, how 

much it costs industry to submit an RFI? Have you heard from 

your members? I mean, what is—— 

Mr. PEARL. I don’t think there is a rule of thumb, Congresswoman, but I think that the concept is that it—this came through 

that if on a potential $10 million contract it could cost $1 million 

in pre-expenses, in terms of what is going on. 

The issue is not that it is costly, it is that since an—what has 

happened is generally—and this is not just a TSA-specific issue— 

is that what happens is that an RFI is put out there. We are requesting information. Please give us—for the general concept. The 

companies put together the plans and potentials and what is there 

and what they are asking for and then it sits. 

Mrs. BROOKS. So—— 

Mr. PEARL. Whether you are a small business or whether you are 

a mid-sized or a large, that may never turn into a contract—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. So are you saying, though, that TSA or the other 

agencies are not responding to the RFIs and are not commenting 

and critiquing them or asking follow up—— 

Mr. PEARL. In some instances. I mean, that is why before we get 

even to the RFI process, if industry and Government can talk 

through—whether it is through these small, more focused industry 

days that we have been talking about or whether it is just through 

even webinars, and we have been talking to them about the—even 

at a time of sequestration when the monies are very tight you 

could, in essence, put on webinars so that you can reach out not 

just to the folks inside the beltway but to the folks that are in Atlanta or Idaho or wherever. 

So we are trying to work with them in developing creative ways, 

given the cost constraints. 

One of the things, I must tell you, that we talk about the benefit 

analysis—the idea of an ROI doesn’t really exist within the Government, and so what we are trying to do is how do you bring the best 

business practices holistically into the Government so that you get 

a better return on your investment? That is part of our discussions 

with them, as well. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Ms. Commodore, would you like to comment on those opportunities and interaction—what is the most beneficial way? 

Ms. COMMODORE. I would just like to say that I haven’t—and the 

companies that I usually deal with—haven’t necessarily had the 

same experiences as Mr. Pearl have in—has had in terms of the 

requests for information. The clear distinction is that normally 

with requests for information one of the best practices that normally take place is there is some page limitation. It is a very simple format of, you know, giving some background about your com-
33 

pany and how you might be able to fulfill your need—fulfill the 

need in the requirement, and just very brief. The plans aren’t always required. 

But I will say, depending on the information that is requested in 

the RFI or the draft solicitation it could become a cost issue, but 

that is not always the case. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. Falconer, you have, in your testimony you talked about the 

fact that when you met with TSA they have adopted some of your 

suggestions in the past, and your list of suggested changes, what 

would be at the top of your list at this point that you would like 

to see TSA or others adopt? 

Mr. FALCONER. Unfortunately, they all combine together. There 

is really no top one. But if I had to pick one to work on first it is 

the issue with security clearances. 

Because of the nature of the information, unless you have a security clearance you can’t understand the requirement. You can’t understand the requirement, you can’t propose a solution. 

But what happens is that we can’t get the security clearance unless we have a contract, so in some kind of way there has to be 

a method in which to provide a security clearance without a contract. Maybe it is through the simple CRADA process—cooperative 

research and development process at the laboratory—which will 

serve as a basis for requesting security clearance so we can begin 

to see the classified requirements and then modify our developments and meet the need better for the agency. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank the gentlelady. 

At this point the Chairman will recognize the gentlelady from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for any questions she may have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman for this hearing, 

along with the Ranking Member. I think this is enormously important hearing and an important issue. Apologize for my delay. Had 

a hearing on FISA in the Judiciary Committee so I apologize, as 

well, for my departure. 

But having lived with these issues for a long time, Mr. Pearl, I 

think your insight, as I have gleaned from notes that I have been 

receiving, is enormously important. So I would like to get right to 

the issue of how do we fix this, because when we are, in our constituency, we hear of so many patriots who are interested in working with Homeland Security and also, not only interested but have 

particular, precise technology that I think is so important. When 

you look at the AIT machines, the new technology, we know we are 

ready for newer technology even though we have made a great 

progress from the antiquated beginning that we had some few 

years ago. 

But I have met with a number of individuals who want no special favors; all they want is to know what the particulars are and 

to be able to respond to it, and to also have the Department have 

a sensitivity to the vastness of talent and technology. So help me 

out in terms of what TSA can do to foster greater innovation as relates to security-related technologies. What precisely, if we were to 

close the hearing today and want to hand them a bill of particulars, 
34 

if you will, what do we need to have in that bill of particulars for 

them to begin reforming their process? 

Mr. PEARL. Well, I mean, I have never been one to say, ‘‘Let’s 

just jump and pass legislation,’’ in part because we don’t always get 

to go jump and pass legislation, in terms of the way the Congressional process works—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It was a phrase of art. I was not talking about 

a bill. 

Mr. PEARL. No. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If we were to hand them a list—— 

Mr. PEARL. That is what I am responding to, because in some 

cases legislation is necessary. In some cases Congress can play a 

bully pulpit role, in terms of providing kind of guidance and encouraging the Department to build on what it has done already. 

Part of our discussion, both with this committee and the staff 

with the folks at the administration, has been a sense of really better understanding best practices and better understanding the lessons learned. I think that Mr. Thompson responded to that in a 

way to say, ‘‘We don’t want to continually try to reinvent the 

wheel.’’ 

So part of our process has been, No. 1, let’s get industry at the 

table—not to drive the process but to inform the process. So the Office of Security Capabilities, which was just formed within TSA, 

has been having industry at the table. We have been working with 

the Management Directorate. We have seen, in many cases, the industry day with industry advisory councils, so that the process is 

already there. 

The encouraging aspect of what this subcommittee and what this 

Congress can do I think will continue. So the bill of particulars 

goes to what my testimony said. If early on in the process we can 

better inform, we can get to the issue of metrics and standards— 

if we can get to those points and understand and we are talking 

on the same kind of technology terminology and we don’t continually just warehouse old potentially obsolete or unnecessary—industry doesn’t benefit from that. Industry benefits when we stay 

ahead of the curve. 

So those kinds of things. Better communication. Do not look at— 

as industry as the adversary; look at industry as a partner, as a 

cooperative, collaborative partner in the process of meeting mission. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Ms. Commodore and Mr. Falconer, do you think we get a better 

product when industry is engaged? I am not sure whether the Security Industry Association, Ms. Commodore, that you are representing, includes small businesses, minority- and women-owned 

businesses—I am not sure of your membership—but if you would 

say, No. 1, do we get a better product, meaning does the Nation 

get a better product because we have engaged? But secondarily, 

how do we get to those very small but technically sophisticated 

with a lot to offer women- and minority-owned businesses to Ms. 

Commodore and Mr. Falconer? 

Ms. COMMODORE. Real quick thinking. I would say initially that 

market assessment needs to be done where you are analyzing the 

businesses that the manufacturers that actually make these prod-
35 

ucts so that you can assess who is—who is really out there qualified at this point that can do the work. Then do a further assessment with these additional vendors that are interested in doing the 

work but are not currently prepared. 

The next thing I would suggest, just as an example, currently 

with GSA the schedule 84 for police equipment and ballistics and 

hazard materials testing, there are 348 small businesses. So there 

is a start right there. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sorry, schedule what? 

Ms. COMMODORE. Schedule 84. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank the gentlelady. 

We will do a second round—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I get Mr. Falconer to just answer the 

question? 

Mr. HUDSON. Sure. Absolutely. 

Dr. Falconer, please go ahead? 

Mr. FALCONER. I will be brief. 

I think it starts with the agency going outside the beltway and 

visiting the small business and innovative businesses, and looking 

and qualifying whether or not there is something there. If there is 

something there there is probably an intermediary step. 

Before you get to a lab it is maybe hiring a third-party test validation agency, getting one of the National labs to do this for you 

under contract, and then have a test bed that the small technology 

business can come in and do its thing and validate that it is real, 

and then provide a supported gateway into the laboratory, which 

is very busy, very crowded when you are talking about National security, and only take the products now where you have had some 

vetting. 

That whole process doesn’t exist. What happens is is that currently you deal with the lab and the lab really doesn’t have time. 

It is only dealing with the same three or four contractors it has always dealt with and that is a full-time job for them, so it is no way 

to get to the table in order to get that technical qualification, quantifying what you are doing in order to move forward to final product design. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. Thank the Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank the gentlelady. 

Thank the witnesses. 

I will start the second round of questioning. I recognize myself 

for 5 minutes. 

I would like to go back to sort-of where I ended up my last question, where we were talking about the strategic acquisition plan 

and we talked about sort of the value of having that plan. But I 

would like to pose to the panel, what do you think should be included in such a plan? How would you structure? What is important that we have in that multi-year plan to make it successful? 

Ms. COMMODORE. Initially with acquisition planning there are 

also different steps to that. There are specific market research criteria that needs to take place. I think the additional steps that 

TSA could do besides the vendor lists that are currently there, are 

to talk to some of the trade associations and their members and 
36 

find out, you know, what is currently going on and what the industry trends are for that. 

The next issue would be to evaluate how the services are actually 

priced in the market to get a more realistic view of how that can 

be done. A lot of times what happens in the acquisitions, businesses, depending on the contract type and the prices, they are assessing risk and they are making a decision as to whether they are 

going to bid or not. So that is the key requirement. That is the key 

thing that should already—also be in there in addition to a quality 

assessment surveillance plan that both parties can work from and 

be measured with. 

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Pearl. 

Mr. PEARL. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree on the better market research. I think that the requirements need to be clear and 

concise with metrics. If it is loosey-goosey, if it is not, if it is, you 

know, kind of amorphous, particularly in the area of technology. 

We have seen it in services where they have been more specific; we 

have seen it sometimes even in product, but in the area of technology it has been rather amorphous. 

Early on, and it goes back to what I have been saying and what 

we reiterate—if there are conceptual meetings that are held to better understand the capability the Government is trying to acquire, 

I mean, that is ahead of even the cost-benefit analysis. That is 

ahead of the return on investment. It is, ‘‘What mission are we trying to achieve? What are we trying to get out of this?’’ 

Then industry can then build to that as opposed to we think— 

and that is what a lot of companies have done, and I have seen 

that over the last 12 years. Companies say, ‘‘I think that what the 

Government needs is this,’’ and then Government doesn’t know 

that it needs it, you know, and nothing goes. 

We have been working with Science and Technology to have a 

technology foraging process to try to move that out so that more 

companies beyond the beltway are part of the process. So small— 

again, small is absolutely essential. Small can be part of a small 

business contract; small can be part of a large business contract as 

a capable partner. 

We need to have them reach out to as many folks as possible who 

bring their requirements to the table. 

Mr. HUDSON. Great. 

Dr. Falconer, would you like to—— 

Mr. FALCONER. Briefly. 

Trusted advisor, it is how the process has occurred. The Government doesn’t really know; they go to the trusted advisor, who is 

usually an incumbent; an incumbent has spent millions—hundreds 

of millions of dollars on a legacy platform. They want to reuse that 

platform, so all of their advice is around trying to reuse that platform. 

You don’t have room for innovation to make it to the table because they are trusting that incumbent to give good direction and 

move forward with a new standard so the standard is built to the 

legacy platform whether it is better or not. There is no assessment 

of how good—it is not statistically, quantitatively determined that 

that adds value or causes a problem. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you. That is extremely helpful. 
37 

With the little time I have got left I wanted to go to this issue 

that Ms. Commodore brought up of third-party testing. I understand that it is common practice in private industry for third-party 

labs to test against standards they did not write. On the other 

hand, I understand the Federal Government prefers to contract 

with testing labs that draft the standards against which they will 

be testing. 

Can you explain—I will start with Ms. Commodore—the differences from your perspective? 

Ms. COMMODORE. The third-party testing laboratories have to be 

accredited, and in that accreditation the quality practices, the 

equipment, the staff—all of it has to be assessed. The additional 

benefit of this assessment and accreditation is that these labs are 

assessed by U.S. and international standards. 

None of these providers that conduct these audits on best practices and quality have any kind of manufactural control or managerial control over that assessment. So it also allows for a more objective review of the testing standards and the testing results. 

Also, just to add to that, currently the EPA actually has—is 

using third-party certification for their Energy Star program, which 

includes over 40 different type of product types. The EPA has— 

they are using third-party certification in addition to some of the 

services for FAA. So it is taking place. 

Mr. HUDSON. All right. Thank you for that. 

My time is expired. 

The Chairman will now recognize the Ranking Member of the 

subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, for 

any questions he may have. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Since we were talking about third-party testing, I guess one of 

the questions I had—do you think it would be beneficial—and, Ms. 

Commodore, you talked about it in life-cycle cost estimates—do you 

think it would be beneficial to have third parties do that testing 

for the—while making the life-cycle cost estimates? I think the 

Coast Guard or some of the other agencies use that, so would you 

make that as a recommendation? 

Ms. COMMODORE. Yes, I would make that as a recommendation 

because part of the life-cycle cost analysis in the industry during 

the testing—that, to us, is accelerated life testing. Basically what 

we are doing is we are assessing the maintenance cost, the possible 

wear and tear on the item, when it is likely to tear and break at 

a specific time period. 

So it goes a long way in not just assessing, you know, the durability and the functionality of the equipment, but it also goes to 

help validate the cost related to that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Falconer, you talked about I guess the challenges in attempting to access data from the Transportation Security Laboratory. I would like to ask you about the consequences of 

it but I would assume they are real consequences. Do you have a 

solution to the problem, or a recommendation? 

Mr. FALCONER. Yes. It is in tiering. Everything in the lab isn’t 

Classified, so if you could tier the CRADA so you can come in 

under a non-Classified CRADA first, get a little bit of the information, go through the process, have a basis for getting the security 
38 

clearance, get it approved, that matches your progression to a product with the approval of TSA, and then you get your clearance and 

then you get a chance to go in and actually get to the Classified 

data and then continue your development process. I believe that is 

a workable solution around the constraints of trying to get to the 

actual analytical data that you need. 

The challenge for everyone is that some of the information and 

materials and things that you need to qualify your system, they are 

only available in National Laboratory or TSL settings; they are not 

available—I can’t go to Walmart and pick it up and take it back 

to my lab and do it. I have to have access to that material, and 

that is the basic problem. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I guess this is just a little bit off subject, but I 

really appreciate the Chairman’s hearing, and I really appreciate 

the conversation that we are having today. I guess my question 

would be: When you talk to TSA and you talk to DHS and you give 

them this advice or you have this conversation, what kind of feedback to you get, No. 1? No. 2, do you think they are receptive or 

you starting to see something happen that makes sense? 

Because we can talk about it here in theory all day long but if 

it is not moving something somewhere then we are wasting our 

time and we are wasting your time and neither one of us have 

much time to waste. 

Mr. FALCONER. I would like to answer that first, briefly. 

It is simple for me. It is very difficult to compete against a large 

business that has billions of dollars available to do R&D. It has to, 

really for me to be successful, have a small business set-aside component that puts me on par from the start to get into the funding 

cycle. 

So it is simple for me to know where this works. I just look and 

see if there are any small business set-asides that are provisions 

coming out of the acquisitions. 

I can say that from—in my sector of what I do I have never seen 

one. It has never come out of my sector. Agency-wide, probably 

there has been some improvement in small business set-aside constructed, and all of this is around debundling and working hard to 

structure the acquisitions so that you can bring not just small businesses—it is the innovation that you want—to the table. You need 

to bring it out into the public space. 

Ms. COMMODORE. I would just add to that, part of the challenge 

that we have had are the regulations—you know, the FAR has 

been around for quite some time and then in addition to that we 

have other related regulations that play a role in these solicitations. So it goes much deeper than that, because obviously, you 

know, businesses wouldn’t be able to get any kind of regulatory revisions in enough time to be able to bid on a particular project. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Well, I would just say this in the remaining minutes that I have, and I think that it goes back to probably what 

my grandmother used to say, which is where there is a will there 

is a way, and I think the policy starts at the top, and if we can’t 

get it through the administration then it has to come through this 

committee. So I really thank the Chairman for his demonstration 

and public display of support for a new procurement process and 

small businesses and really making the statement that we want to 
39 

see some changes, we think there is a better, more common-sense 

way to do what you are doing, and we expect that you will find a 

way because we have the will to make it happen. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for the legislation, thank you for the hearing, and thank the witnesses for 

their time. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. HUDSON. Well, I thank the gentleman, and I thank you for 

your comments. You know, it is very important to me that this be 

a bipartisan process, that, you know, we are looking for solutions. 

The American people sent us here to get solutions and so that is 

why it is important to me that we work together, put parties aside, 

put politics aside, and let’s do what is best for the American people. 

I appreciate, Mr. Richmond, your working with me on this and 

the process, and let’s hope we can get something done here. So 

thank you for that. Thank you for the comments. 

At this time I will recognize the gentlelady from Indiana, Mrs. 

Brooks, for any comments she may have. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HUDSON. Or questions. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Quick question to Dr. Falconer, and maybe to the 

other panelists, because as you talk about what appears to be a 

pretty cumbersome and when you say not a process focused on 

ROI, I am concerned about that. I assume that many of the companies that all of you work with—and obviously you are here representing your own company—but other countries also have security processes, particularly with air travel, and I am curious whether or not other countries have far better processes than our country 

has and if you might share with us what some of your members 

or your own experiences with respect to other countries that have 

a more efficient and a even maybe as if not more scientific process—an innovative process to bring new technologies to their air 

travel. 

I don’t know who would like to start off. 

Maybe Dr. Falconer, I don’t know if you have dealt with any 

other countries? 

Mr. FALCONER. Let me just pick one example. That is the European Civil Air Commission, which is the TSA of Europe. The process for qualification is about a year. Same class of systems that will 

go in their airports to do the same things in our airports. 

Our qualification system process is maybe three times that, 

maybe four—depends on where you are—— 

Mrs. BROOKS. So you are saying that to get the clearances you 

have talked about and to be able to bid and get involved it is about 

a year in Europe and 3 to 4 years here. 

Mr. FALCONER. Yes. Much faster. They took a little more risk. 

Their process is very small business-friendly so they get the innovation component, and they do a lot of collaboration between the 

airline industry and the airport manager and the technology company, so there is some shared risk and earlier pilot deployments 

and collaboration to get the technology to the forefront faster. The 

lab process is a little bit shorter and they take a little more risk 

in different areas. 
40 

I think there is a strong collaboration between TSA and ECAC 

at this point, and I think that some of that cross-pollination is happening. They don’t do everything right and we don’t. We just want 

to share and find a collaborative way and merge some of the standards to get the same answer. 

Mrs. BROOKS. That is what I wanted to—was just going to ask. 

So does the European Civil Air Commission work collaboratively 

with TSA and I wonder if there are any other countries or other 

areas of the world that your companies work with that have a better experience in working with Government on air travel? 

Mr. PEARL. I wouldn’t necessarily say better, but different. In 

fact, I have been asked to speak at an airport security conference 

that is going to be in Prague in the fall, where there is going to 

be security officers from airports from all over the world. 

One of the problems has been, in point of fact, that I am one of 

the few industry people that has been invited to be participating. 

In essence, what we have seen in many instances is that Europe 

doesn’t recognize the kind of trusted advisor role that industry can 

play; it is viewed as only as a contractor, and that the ministers 

of many of the countries do not—and this is not just TSA, this is 

at all levels of Homeland Security—don’t always see that industry 

brings a sense of understanding, of knowledge, of best practices. 

So what we are trying to build into the model is what the council 

and other organizations are trying to do, which is if Europe and 

some of the third-world countries that are developing new airports—they are starting from the premise of security, not from 

technology. The question that you were just engaged in focused on, 

are they bringing the right technologies? 

Right now the issue should be, are they bringing in the concept 

of security into the discussion of whatever it is, whether it be maritime, whether it be aviation, whether it be mass transportation? To 

a certain extent, as they are developing new ways and modalities 

in the 21st Century they are, in fact, embedding the concept of security, and that is where it is been different, whereas in the United 

States we go begrudgingly, ‘‘Oh, I have to bring security into the 

concept?’’ 

You know, and so what we are trying to change, so in essence, 

I am going over there to hear from them as much as they are going 

to be hearing from the way, in essence, we are doing it. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

Ms. Commodore. 

Ms. COMMODORE. I would just like to add that yes, there is—Europe, as an example, even Australia—there is more of a collaborative effort that takes place. They also tend to, in some instances, 

in terms of best practices, have more detailed requirements and 

procedures into, you know, how those changes should be implemented and discussed. 

Mrs. BROOKS. Thank you. 

My time is up and I thank you all for your ideas and for your 

passion for making this, you know, industry and the Government 

work in a much more collaborative approach. Thank you. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank the gentlelady. 

I thank our witnesses for your excellent testimony today and the 

Members for their questions. 
41 

The Members of this committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses that we will ask you to respond to these in 

writing. Without objection, committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ